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

Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

lucaguidi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 143 posts

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#21

Post by thecoffman »

jaredcwhite wrote: post #12

I'm all for new frameworks that emphasize different ideas and philosophies. If nobody ever tried experimenting with a new approach, we wouldn't have Rails in the first place. So kudos to Luca and his fine work in developing Lotus. I like much of what I see. That being said, I feel like YARWF (Yet Another Ruby Web Framework) is not the most pressing matter in the web space today, and I take exception to the notion tha…

>A complete web framework has client-side components that facilitate two-way communication to/from the server, data binding, HTML5 history state-based page/view swapping, etc. In other words, the type of stuff being addressed by Angular, etc.

No. I can't possibly disagree with this any more strongly.

I'm probably on the wrong side of history here, but Javascript absolutely should _not_ be a requirement for using a website. If your website doesn't work with NoScript turned on, I won't utilize it. Full stop.

In my mind Javascript should be used for progressive enhancement for those users that opt to enable it (or I suppose more correctly: choose not to disable it). Building a thick client web app is the fastest route to ensuring I won't use it.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#22

Post by joevandyk »

mrinterweb wrote: post #18

By what I've seen I like the spirit of Lotus, but I sense a movement away from complete web frameworks to pure API back-ends with the emergence of great single page JS frameworks like Ember. One ruby one that I like is https://intridea.github.io/grape/ . One interesting node API framework I mean to try is http://loopback.io/ .

You could easily use Lotus as an API server.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#24

Post by blktiger »

thecoffman wrote: post #21
jaredcwhite wrote: post #12

I'm all for new frameworks that emphasize different ideas and philosophies. If nobody ever tried experimenting with a new approach, we wouldn't have Rails in the first place. So kudos to Luca and his fine work in developing Lotus. I like much of what I see. That being said, I feel like YARWF (Yet Another Ruby Web Framework) is not the most pressing matter in the web space today, and I take exception to the notion tha…

>A complete web framework has client-side components that facilitate two-way communication to/from the server, data binding, HTML5 history state-based page/view swapping, etc. In other words, the type of stuff being addressed by Angular, etc. No. I can't possibly disagree with this any more strongly. I'm probably on the wrong side of history here, but Javascript absolutely should _not_ be a requirement for using a we…

You are welcome to hold that opinion. Just keep in mind that the majority of users don't even know what javascript is or how to disable it. Depending on the audience, the fact that you don't want to enable javascript may or may not be a concern to the developers.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#25

Post by yid »

Eleopteryx wrote: post #6

This is depressingly similar to what I was aiming for when I recently began work on: https://github.com/lean-framework/lean (I feel like this happens to me a lot.) Rails controllers are hard to test because actions aren't designed to be testable objects. ActiveRecord models become monolithic because there's no separation of instantiation, validation, persistence, or retrieval. I originally experimented with building…

> This is depressingly similar

In graduate school, many a moon ago, my advisor would say that this is validation of the idea, so one should be happy to be on the right track.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#26

Post by Igglyboo »

thecoffman wrote: post #21
jaredcwhite wrote: post #12

I'm all for new frameworks that emphasize different ideas and philosophies. If nobody ever tried experimenting with a new approach, we wouldn't have Rails in the first place. So kudos to Luca and his fine work in developing Lotus. I like much of what I see. That being said, I feel like YARWF (Yet Another Ruby Web Framework) is not the most pressing matter in the web space today, and I take exception to the notion tha…

>A complete web framework has client-side components that facilitate two-way communication to/from the server, data binding, HTML5 history state-based page/view swapping, etc. In other words, the type of stuff being addressed by Angular, etc. No. I can't possibly disagree with this any more strongly. I'm probably on the wrong side of history here, but Javascript absolutely should _not_ be a requirement for using a we…

>If your website doesn't work with NoScript turned on, I won't utilize it.

You're definitely in the minority then, most users don't even know what javascript is let alone NoScript. I find it ridiculous that people are arguing against javascript, we're using a computer and not allowing it to run code.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#28

Post by DogeDogeDoge »

How many of this type of frameworks we had. Padrino was there to fix something but achieved nothing. It is better to focus on rails and fixing rails rather than start a framework for everything.

Few doge years ago sinatra was faster than rails, today... not so obvious and still offering much smaller set of functionality.

Post reply on HN