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

Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

naildrivin5.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#31

Post by simultsop »

reactordev wrote: post #26
nine_k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All frameworks are like that. They make it simple to solve a particular class of problems, by making choices for you, and providing code that supports these choices. If your problems fit the framework's shape, it can be immensely helpful. If not, go look for another. There's nothing wrong about building a framework that matches your particular needs and tastes. If you need a universal toolbox, no framework will do, y…

One can learn a lot from the Adapter pattern. Don’t force me into your box, provide a framework for me to solve my problems.

You should give some humility lessons...

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#33

Post by rorylaitila »

I like the emphasis on forms and pages. That's the approach I take in my apps. Forms and Links drive all interaction. Any JavaScript enhancements merely click an existing form (even if it's hidden). You can always inspect the HTML and know exactly the route that will handle the interaction. I think controllers are overused. It's really forms, models (backend) and views (Pages). A lot of the validation and ceremony of controllers can be handled more elegantly by the framework.

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#36

Post by gavmor »

> Is this the index action of the widgets resource or the show action of the widget-list resource? is a question you will never have to ask yourself or your team. The widgets page is called WidgetsPage and available at /widgets.

Hm, uh, seems like now we will be forever asking ourselves this question about /widgets.

That being said, it looks good! Might get me back into ruby if I can come up with a project for it.

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#37

Post by brightball »

andrewstuart wrote: post #32

[flagged]

Comfort, speed, preference, flexibility, lack of benefit on web projects where all data is by default a string, your ORM has already mapped the types directly in the database and will transform everything automatically without repeat definition, you're dealing with a lot of JSON API calls that may change where you don't _need_ all of the data so being forced into a situation of strictly typing 3rd party nested substructures can created a lot of wasted time...

Just off the top of my head. To each their own.

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#39

Post by davetron5000 »

gavmor wrote: post #35
davetron5000 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Ruby! Ruby has types. They just aren't enforced by a compiler.

Well, yeah, then what's the point?

I'm OK not using a compiler. Used one for years and am good on that for now. I like writing Ruby.

Re: Brut: A New Web Framework for Ruby

#40

Post by duck »

freedomben wrote: post #2

Neat, 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!

Another option is https://roda.jeremyevans.net/, which I've found is the sweet spot in smaller projects, but can still scale up. The plugin system works really well to extend and the routing tree is really easy to work with.
Post reply on HN