51–60 of 143 posts
Weird, I get the idea of defining a new web framework API, but why would you build everything from scratch? There's loads of very good open source code out there. Why not fork DataMapper for Lotus::Model for example? Now you have some dodgy hand rolled library that's probably not seen enough eyes to be really production proof.
Weird, I get the idea of defining a new web framework API, but why would you build everything from scratch? There's loads of very good open source code out there. Why not fork DataMapper for Lotus::Model for example? Now you have some dodgy hand rolled library that's probably not seen enough eyes to be really production proof.
Lotus::Model apparently depends on https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel , which has been widely used in production similarly to DataMapper.
Some years ago I even implemented an XQuery querying backend for DataMapper, it was not much work at all, at a time where AR still had SQL code all through the base and Sequel was just in low profile development.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
I used to think like you, but I've since understood since that this is the wrong battle. You have 2 things that are more and more diverging yet use the same platform for distribution: - websites as-you-know-them, which goal is to provide _information_ - webapps, which goal is to provide _services_ Your point of view is completely valid for the first kind: when you want the information, you don't want the frills that…
I guess some things are really "documents" (Wikipedia articles) and some things are really "apps" (HTML5 games), but it seems like there's a huge swath of uncritical groupthink that's saying you're web thing needs to be an "app" because iPhone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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…
I respect your opinion, but I will happily disregard it when it comes to building web apps. If that means I someday lose you as a customer, so be it.
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…
Weird, I get the idea of defining a new web framework API, but why would you build everything from scratch? There's loads of very good open source code out there. Why not fork DataMapper for Lotus::Model for example? Now you have some dodgy hand rolled library that's probably not seen enough eyes to be really production proof.
Lotus::Model apparently depends on https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel , which has been widely used in production similarly to DataMapper.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Thanks for the de-demotivation.
Lotus being received well just means people are ready for the idea. That may not have been the case in 2011, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the de-demotivation.
It isn't zero sum. There's still substantial design space to explore. Lotus being received well just means people are ready for the idea. That may not have been the case in 2011, for instance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lotus::Model apparently depends on https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel , which has been widely used in production similarly to DataMapper.
Sequel is way more actively supported/developed compared to datamapper. Last release of DM was in 13/10/2011...