I know this issue has been brought up many times before, but to some extent the existence of a framework suggests a lack of composability in the language being discussed. This gets discussed a lot in the context of Clojure, where people new to Clojure often ask, "Where are the frameworks?" The more meta-programming that a language allows, the more its functions will tend to be composable. The more composable it is, t…
Alternative: The iMacros addons for Firefox, Chrome or IE. Not exactly an autofill replacement, more like a macro recorder for web browsers.
I think in many cases a good minimalist framework will get a core set of functions out of the way (in web for example: routing, autoloading, dependency injection, etc.). Grabbing something small that provides a proven but efficient backbone can let you focus on delivering core value, but then can easily be switched out later as the solution grows.
One would think that you wouldn't want to switch out a framework later. After all, your choice of network is one of the defining factors of how everything will work. Swapping it out means rewriting most, if not all, of your CRUD functionality and then doing a whole lot of regression testing. Doesn't seem very cost or time-effective.
Regression testing is inevitable, but with a minimal framework, you'll essentially end up rewriting the controllers, and part of the views. If you switch templating systems, modifying the views can't be helped. And the controllers should only be a glue between your view and the service layer, so it ought to be solely administrative code.
I know this issue has been brought up many times before, but to some extent the existence of a framework suggests a lack of composability in the language being discussed. This gets discussed a lot in the context of Clojure, where people new to Clojure often ask, "Where are the frameworks?" The more meta-programming that a language allows, the more its functions will tend to be composable. The more composable it is, t…
A fantastic example of this (in javascript) is trending right now on hackernews – myth. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6923141 Look at this implementation: it's just a composition of a bunch of other libraries. no logic at all. This is how it should be: https://github.com/segmentio/myth/blob/master/index.js#L37-L...
Errm... then I fail to see how 'myth' isn't just a wrapper around 'rework'?
I know this issue has been brought up many times before, but to some extent the existence of a framework suggests a lack of composability in the language being discussed. This gets discussed a lot in the context of Clojure, where people new to Clojure often ask, "Where are the frameworks?" The more meta-programming that a language allows, the more its functions will tend to be composable. The more composable it is, t…
A really good example is the Gorilla toolkit for Go. A few modules for common tasks such as sessions and routing, super easy to use with the standard net/http package thanks to implicit interfaces.
I agree. Having just finished a project with Flask, I ended up using no less than 8 million dependencies that I'd never heard of. "BYO everything" frameworks would be more appropriate, but even then, Flask brings with it an entire basement of sub-frameworks that I would argue make it so that you might as well just use a full-fledged framework like Django.
That's how it works with micro-frameworks, you pay for what you use. Now, it's not necessarily a problem, last time I checked, there was a decent list of functional Flask components. What do you feel is the advantage of having a huge 'contrib' folder, as long as the extensions are maintained? Because the advantage of not having an ORM bundled per default, and easily switching something like the templating language ar…
I have a django project that swapped out the django templates for mako. Mako templates are awesome to use. The problem is it becomes extremely difficult to use packages that have bundled templates of their own. I would think it'd be the same with flask, no?
Making assumptions about the available ORM and templating package allows 3rd party modules to do more of the work for you.
Wow. that's brilliant. As we would say on tumblr " This is why we can have nice things". I'm actually experimenting with `scotty` for haskell now. Though a tad limited (getting sessions to work is a bit whiney) I had a decently working URL-shortener up and running in an hour of composing haskell modules and writing a max of 20 lines of code. This whole micro-framework thing is getting close to my view of the ideal wa…
Not surer I understand the popularity of microframeworks, over fuller frameworks. Using a large framework like Django should allow you to use "as much reusable components" at any time, plus you have the advantage of knowing that they will play nicely together, and should have some sort of consistency between them. Yes you get a bigger download, but it will be stored on the server, not downloaded each time a user clic…
> Less dependencies, as more is included out of the box.
Or... more unnecessary dependencies you're forced to code around if you happen not to want or need them.