Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
naildrivin5.com
Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
1–10 of 88 posts
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#2Neat, this looks like it might be a good middle ground between Sinatra (which I adore) on the barebones/low-level end and Rails (which I also adore for apps that need it, but simple apps really don't).
Looking forward to trying it out!
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#3>What about monads or algebraic data types or currying or maybe having everything be a Proc because call?! You don’t have to understand any part of that question. But if you want your business logic to use functors, go for it. We won’t stop you.
I love this! It sounds exactly what I’d want to use for a side project or a project with a limited number of reasonable, senior coworkers.
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#4[flagged]
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#5[flagged]
I'm not trying to start a fight, but fwiw I adore both typescript and rails.
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#6Tried to login to the example site, unfortunately hit an error immediately after auth'ing with github.
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#7> I know, we can vibe away all the boilerplate required for Rails apps. But how much fun is that? How much do you enjoy setting up RSpec, again, in your new Rails app? How tired are you of changing the “front end solution” every few years? And aren’t you just tired of debating where your business logic goes or if it’s OK to use HTTP DELETE (tunneled over a _method param in a POST) to archive a widget?
For your personal hobby project, go nuts. Break all the rules and cowboy all your own conventions.
But for business applications, the conventions Rails enforces at least make codebases somewhat familiar if you've seen a Rails codebase before.
At a certain codebase size, boilerplate is almost unavoidable. Unpleasant, but necessary. Personally, I'd rather have some conventions, rules, and guardrails for where the boilerplate lives rather than trying to navigate your homegrown pile of code. Good luck maintaining that spaghetti when you've got multiple developers.
It's not clear how this new web framework avoids boilerplate anyway, so I don't see how this is an improvement over Rails. Presumably you'll still need to set up lots of stuff yourself, like RSpec. If the framework sets all of that stuff up for you in a conventional way, then you're just back to square one as soon as you need to fight against the framework's conventions.
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#8> I know, we can vibe away all the boilerplate required for Rails apps. But how much fun is that? How much do you enjoy setting up RSpec, again, in your new Rails app? How tired are you of changing the “front end solution” every few years? And aren’t you just tired of debating where your business logic goes or if it’s OK to use HTTP DELETE (tunneled over a _method param in a POST) to archive a widget? For your person…
[deleted]
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#9[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby
#10Tried to login to the example site, unfortunately hit an error immediately after auth'ing with github.
Author here - the example doesn't allow logins now to avoid abuse. I wasn't 100% sure I'd make it public and just decided today to do it, so it's not yet ready for just anyone to login.
You can run the site locally, or view pages on the site by going to https://brutrb.com/adrs.html and clicking those links.