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

List of minimalist frameworks

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 95 posts

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#71

Post by tbatterii »

collyw wrote: post #54
arianvanp wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

bigger frameworks like django tend to get in your way for anything that the framework was not intended for. not every web app is a "fetch content from db and display to users"

try doing something workflow heavy on appengine with datastore. The django orm wont work for datastore, so what you are left with out of the framework is regex based routing(ewww) and a bunch of crippled components(meaning depending on an orm you can't use).

django has it's place dont get me wrong, i would use it to quickly squeeze out internal db backed apps all day. maybe even use it as a cms. But i'd rather not do those kinds of projects at all.

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#73

Post by tbatterii »

collyw wrote: post #53
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no trend towards lighter frameworks. Frameworks were originally being developed by people with high-end needs. They are then also adopted by people with low-end needs, who conclude that the framework is too big and complicated for them, and start developing/adopting more light weight frameworks. This market is still young, so there are no dominant players like Rails, Django or Symfony yet. It's more a matter…

As a Django user, I hear a lot of people rant about microframeworks, and I have to ask, why? I was amazed at the productivity gains and organization Django brought to my code. If all that bloat is getting in the way, why not go back to CGI? That must be the most minimal of frameworks.

there's middle ground between something heavy like django and CGI/WSGI, I think they are called micro frameworks.

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#74

Post by tbatterii »

lmm wrote: post #52
lkrubner wrote: post #27

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…

That's not a uniform trend; five years ago in Python you put together a lot of small pieces (and e.g. Turbogears was a nominal framework that was actually a lot of small libraries being composed together). Nowadays Django has a lot more mindshare, and many of those libraries are abandoned. I'm not sure why you're comparing Rails with Struts, which never seemed particularly popular in my experience; Rails certainly fe…

> five years ago in Python you put together a lot of small pieces (and e.g. Turbogears was a nominal framework that was actually a lot of small libraries being composed together).

I loved those days. :)

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#75

Post by tbatterii »

rmrfrmrf wrote: post #7
AndyKelley wrote: post #4

Isn't "minimalist framework" a contradiction? It seems like if you were going for minimalism you would not use a framework.

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.

i just finished up a django project that also had "8 million" dependencies, the difference was a lot of them started with "django-" and some dependencies I would have liked to use were off the table.

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#76

Post by roberthahn »

biftek wrote: post #14
jamese wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scorched may also be nice to add. https://github.com/Wardrop/Scorched

Don't forget Camping! https://github.com/camping/camping

One of my favourite frameworks! I abandoned Rails for Camping when I saw how easily I could grok the entire framework. One thing I liked doing when building web apps was to rip out the View infrastructure so that I could more easily render alternative formats. I've written a couple of articles on Camping here [1], [2] that people might be interested in (be gentle, my writing wasn't as good 6 years ago)

[1] http://roberthahn.ca/articles/2007/07/23/three-methods-for-s... 3 methods for simulating render_component in Camping [2] http://roberthahn.ca/articles/2007/07/22/camping-without-the... Camping without the View

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#77

Post by collyw »

tbatterii wrote: post #71
collyw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

bigger frameworks like django tend to get in your way for anything that the framework was not intended for. not every web app is a "fetch content from db and display to users" try doing something workflow heavy on appengine with datastore. The django orm wont work for datastore, so what you are left with out of the framework is regex based routing(ewww) and a bunch of crippled components(meaning depending on an orm y…

I believe there is a plugin for working with the App engine. And also Django is modular enough that you only need to use the parts you require. So again, I don't see the advantage on messing with micro-frameworks, and cobbling together multiple libraries, when you have one set of libraries that you know works nicely together.

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#78

Post by collyw »

krapp wrote: post #69
collyw wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have never felt the need to "code around a dependency". (Is dependency the right word? In Django you have less deployment dependencies, because lots of stuff is included already.)

Sure things are included and make Django a bigger download than microframeworks, but other than a bit of disk space on the server, I have never had a problem with parts of the framework I don't need.

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#79

Post by collyw »

tbatterii wrote: post #75
rmrfrmrf wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i just finished up a django project that also had "8 million" dependencies, the difference was a lot of them started with "django-" and some dependencies I would have liked to use were off the table.

But the fact they start with Django means you can expect a) They will play nicely together. b) There will be consistencies between the libraries. c) Magic things like the Amdin interface will work.

(Is there any good replacement for Djangos Admin in another framework? Its amazingly powerful with a small amount of configuration).

Re: List of minimalist frameworks

#80

Post by sophacles »

tbatterii wrote: post #74
lmm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a uniform trend; five years ago in Python you put together a lot of small pieces (and e.g. Turbogears was a nominal framework that was actually a lot of small libraries being composed together). Nowadays Django has a lot more mindshare, and many of those libraries are abandoned. I'm not sure why you're comparing Rails with Struts, which never seemed particularly popular in my experience; Rails certainly fe…

> five years ago in Python you put together a lot of small pieces (and e.g. Turbogears was a nominal framework that was actually a lot of small libraries being composed together). I loved those days. :)

Flask is very similar, but they do plugins better - many of the plugins are just thin wrappers around the existing (good) libraries for namespace and context handling -passing the core library functionality to the user. It's also been growing in popularity (hence support and active development).
Post reply on HN