Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reahl – A Python-only web framework

reahl.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 108 posts

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#41

Post by westurner »

macspoofing wrote: post #37
jaequery wrote: post #28

I feel bad about projects like these, I really do. I'm sure a lot of effort have been put in and it probably satisfies what OP wants to do. But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it.

>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).

Before GWT, there was Wt framework (C++); and then JWt (Java), which do the server and clientsides (with widgets in a tree).

Wt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wt_(web_toolkit)

JWt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWt_(Java_web_toolkit)

GWT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Web_Toolkit

Now we have Babel, ES YYYY, and faster browser release cycles.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#42

Post by tiuPapa »

So how does this work? So is this like a templating where instead of writing a template file, you write an app using widgets and element functions that the framework provides and then stitch together an HTML page when requested and send to the browser?

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#43

Post by sl1ck731 »

paulie_a wrote: post #40
macspoofing wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).

Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. Ja…

I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely.

Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python.

The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and any number of other people who don't take the backend as seriously as someone who has been devoted to it using a non-javascript language.

I think the other issue is the javascript community wants to reinvent itself every couple months, instead of having one project that becomes defacto for x function over many years.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#44

Post by paulie_a »

sl1ck731 wrote: post #43
paulie_a wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. Ja…

I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely. Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python. The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and…

Npm might be a good tool like pip. But unlike pip it encourages installing shit.

Even react which from limited experience is pretty cool. But apparently there must be dozens possibly hundreds of true senior devs in the US. Most everyone else fucks it up.

And I agree there is a shallow depth in the js world. Everyone wants the new shiny toy instead of using an evolving toolkit. JS is the embodiment of ADD.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#45

Post by rococode »

IanCal wrote: post #35
jaequery wrote: post #28

I feel bad about projects like these, I really do. I'm sure a lot of effort have been put in and it probably satisfies what OP wants to do. But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it.

Can you add some more here? Personally I'd probably not use this as I'm already using something with the same aim (dash), I certainly use a project like this for serious things.

I think what OP means is that for someone whose goal is to start a successful business, using a more obscure and new framework is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. There's nothing significant enough that a framework like this provides that justifies 1) the difficulty finding people with appropriate experience, 2) relying on something that may become unmaintained, and 3) an immature ecosystem that means having to deal with tricky problems as you build more complex functionality because you're among the first people to need it.

Of course, there's the "just looking to build something (serious or not) and not concerned about it becoming a profitable business" group of people - like you, perhaps - and that's great! But it generally takes a lot of enthusiasts before a library becomes accepted as mainstream and a certain amount of luck is required for that to happen.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#47

Post by theamk »

sl1ck731 wrote: post #43
paulie_a wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. Ja…

I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely. Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python. The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and…

I don't think it is possible to separate language from tools or community. Those things are always together.

It is entirely possible that Javascript itself is an OK language, but it is too late now. The community has already decided that packages should be tiny, that changing prototype of "array" object is an acceptable thing to do, that failing fast is bad and the best reaction to errors is to mess up the page layout in the unexpected way, and so on.

Maybe one day, Javascript will re-invent itself and get reliable software engineering practices. But I highly doubt that -- there are countless people who know the laguage already, and they are not going to be changing their opinions overnight.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#48

Post by [deleted] »

westurner wrote: post #41
macspoofing wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).

Before GWT, there was Wt framework (C++); and then JWt (Java), which do the server and clientsides (with widgets in a tree). Wt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wt_(web_toolkit) JWt: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWt_(Java_web_toolkit) GWT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Web_Toolkit Now we have Babel, ES YYYY, and faster browser release cycles.

[deleted]

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#49

Post by zaro »

jaequery wrote: post #28

I feel bad about projects like these, I really do. I'm sure a lot of effort have been put in and it probably satisfies what OP wants to do. But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it.

And for a good reason. These frameworks usually make development much harder than simply using JS directly.

Re: Reahl – A Python-only web framework

#50

Post by untog »

theamk wrote: post #47
sl1ck731 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely. Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python. The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and…

I don't think it is possible to separate language from tools or community. Those things are always together. It is entirely possible that Javascript itself is an OK language, but it is too late now. The community has already decided that packages should be tiny, that changing prototype of "array" object is an acceptable thing to do, that failing fast is bad and the best reaction to errors is to mess up the page layou…

> changing prototype of "array" object is an acceptable thing to do

Uhh, no? I code in JS every day and do nothing of the sort, and I would object if I saw it.

> failing fast is bad and the best reaction to errors is to mess up the page layout in the unexpected way

I don't even know what you mean by this, but the fact that you're conflating JS with "the page" suggests to me that you're not that familiar with server-side JS (which has no "page") and the enormous amount of code that is written to be compatible with it.

Post reply on HN