Obviously my intent was to explain thing to a layperson in terms that they may have heard or understand. I find your comment quite snarky in that regard and also inaccurate.
HTML ist keine Software, sondern eine "Datenbeschreibungssprache", in der man Texte niederlegt, so dass sie von einem z.B. Webbrowser interpretiert werden können und dieser dann Texte und Links darstellen kann.
If I had said "...that is definitely not (part of the) front end software like HTML" then there'd be no problem. Did it make a difference to anyone reading it, I doubt it very much. Snark 1.
Ein Framework kann zwar auch aus reinen Spezifikationen bestehen (insofern ist " 'Gerüst', ... how you report errors" nicht ganz falsch),
Yes there are document frameworks, also testing frameworks and god knows whatever else for frameworks. But if you ask practically anyone in IT, without context, what a framework is, and they will give the same answer as me, because that is the framework that software professionals encounter by far the most often. It's like me saying "Dackel" and you countering, "ahh you have to be precise because there are Rauhaardackel as well". Your addition adds nothing to the explanation because we are obviously talking about a software framework in the quote below. You are taking my answer completely out of context, as if I'm explaining what 'framework' could mean, instead of answering what it probably means in this context. Calling that imprecise is Snark 2.
als Integration Framework ist es aber selbst Software, die Routinen anbietet, um verschiedene Module in einem System einbinden zu können. Es beschreibt also nicht mehr, z.B. wie man Fehler loggt, sondern loggt sie selber, wenn das zu integrierende Modul die entsprechende Methode aufruft.
Integration Framework is the washiest term of all these and without the original document it is impossible to say what this thing does, that's why I wrote "most likely" and "could have other uses". I've encountered people calling their system testing environment where several independently developed systems come together, in particular their entry points to the environment, an integration framework i.e. completely devoid of software. It is therefore completely imprecise of you to claim that an integration framework is something universally acknowledged as meaning something particular or even being software. Silly snark 3.
Und Middleware muss nicht unbedingt mit einem Frontend verknüpft sein, sondern verknüpft üblicherweise Schnittstellenbefehle in einem Gerät (device) mit der meist in Maschinencode hinterlegten Firmware. So auf Anhieb fällt mir kein Anwendungsfall ein, bei der Middleware (sofern der Begriff auch korrekt verwendet wird) direkt eine Frontend-Anbindung hat, eher kommuniziert sie mit einem Client, der seinerseits wieder aus Schnittstellenteil und Frontend besteht.
I did not say that it must be connected to frontend. I literally used the word "usually". Again you take things completely out of context. I was trying, successfully given Meiki's reaction, to give an idea about what he/she was working with. I was not trying to be some smartarse and list all possible contexts where middleware could be used, between which components it could be used and whether it's a bought black-box software solution or a self-developed piece of code, or whether it's running directly on portable hardware, it's client code is running on the portable hardware or whether the entire thing is running on the backend or a thousand other variations.
Overall I find it highly aggravating for my post to be labelled "imprecise" by someone who I severely doubt has 30+ years in the IT industry, in particular backend system development where these terms are used daily, like me. The only thing in my post that is imprecise, is that I left "part of the" out in snark 1. But even then, jeez, did it matter?