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

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#91

Post by al2o3cr »

programminggeek wrote: post #62

I think it's great to see someone make a run at a more decoupled ruby web app approach. I hope it succeeds. In my experience working on Obvious ( http://obvious.retromocha.com ) it is hard to get Ruby developers behind decoupled architectures because the large majority aren't Ruby devs, they are Rails devs and Rails happens to be in Ruby. Also, the larger group of developers doesn't like the idea of an app being a gi…

I'm pretty sure they make a pill or something for that scorching case of hasheritis. ;)

One problem I have with "decoupled" architectures is that the only way you can sensibly interop with everything from RDBMS to flat JSON files is if you treat the RDBMS as a flat file. For instance, the sample Twitter clone treats every available DB as a plain key-value store.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#92

Post by pandatigox »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #86
emiller829 wrote: post #38

This is a promising start. I've felt for a while now that we need some strong alternatives to Rails for the folks who feel like the Rails Way and the Ruby Way don't always get along. It still feels a bit DSL-centric from the examples I've seen thus far, and haven't dug into things to see what the generated Ruby looks like -- but if it's anything close to simple, this is something that has a chance to become an import…

For a while, I thought Sinatra was taking that role? It might be interesting to think about what people are looking for that's neither Sinatra nor Rails, or why Sinatra didn't live up to what people were hoping (if people think that). Sometimes I think some of this is just utopian grass-is-greener thinking. While there are _many_ things I'd do differently in Rails if I had the choice (some but certainly not all of wh…

Sinatra, in my opinion, gets pretty hacked together after the initial `def get '/'; puts "Hello World"; end`

Personally, I think Camping is the perfect fit for Ruby frameworks

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#93

Post by jeremyevans »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
tinco wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems you are right, my apologies, I clearly hadn't read deep enough. Still, Sequel is just an SQL abstraction. DataMapper is exactly what Lotus::Model is, a full model abstraction over databases, regardless of the querying language. 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 jus…

> It seems you are right, my apologies, I clearly hadn't read deep enough. Still, Sequel is just an SQL abstraction. DataMapper is exactly what Lotus::Model is, a full model abstraction over databases, regardless of the querying language. AFAICT from reading the Sequel code (and especially the code for the existing adapters), there's no real hard dependency on SQL (since the adapter both generates and applies the que…

Correct, it's not impossible, there was a proof of concept mongo driver: https://github.com/jeremyevans/sequel-mongo . I doubt it still works with current Sequel, though, as I only coded it for a lightning talk in 2010.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#94

Post by nitrogen »

pandatigox wrote: post #92
jrochkind1 wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while, I thought Sinatra was taking that role? It might be interesting to think about what people are looking for that's neither Sinatra nor Rails, or why Sinatra didn't live up to what people were hoping (if people think that). Sometimes I think some of this is just utopian grass-is-greener thinking. While there are _many_ things I'd do differently in Rails if I had the choice (some but certainly not all of wh…

Sinatra, in my opinion, gets pretty hacked together after the initial `def get '/'; puts "Hello World"; end` Personally, I think Camping is the perfect fit for Ruby frameworks

It is very possible to organize a Sinatra project elegantly. It generally involves a combination of require_relative and Dir.glob().

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#95

Post by subsection1h »

pbreit wrote: post #55
thecoffman wrote: post #21

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 couldn't care less about losing you as a visitor to my site. It's 2014. JavaScript is required for using the web.

JavaScript is required to read any article? Why?

The apps that I work on require JavaScript, but the landing pages for these apps do not. The content sites that I've worked on also don't require JavaScript.

Not once in my life have I been reading an article on the web when I said to myself, "Man, this article sure could use some JavaScript."

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#96

Post by jrochkind1 »

nitrogen wrote: post #94
pandatigox wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sinatra, in my opinion, gets pretty hacked together after the initial `def get '/'; puts "Hello World"; end` Personally, I think Camping is the perfect fit for Ruby frameworks

It is very possible to organize a Sinatra project elegantly. It generally involves a combination of require_relative and Dir.glob().

That's interesting; I tend to agree with the crowd that wishes Rails didn't do any kind of auto-loading.

But are you suggesting that you need to add a kind of basic auto-loading to Sinatra to keep things sane?

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#97

Post by pbreit »

subsection1h wrote: post #95
pbreit wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I couldn't care less about losing you as a visitor to my site. It's 2014. JavaScript is required for using the web.

JavaScript is required to read any article? Why? The apps that I work on require JavaScript, but the landing pages for these apps do not. The content sites that I've worked on also don't require JavaScript. Not once in my life have I been reading an article on the web when I said to myself, "Man, this article sure could use some JavaScript."

Not once in my life have I ever considered switching off JavaScript. How completely silly.

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#98

Post by jshen »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #90

Looks nice. I particularly like the ORM, which seems well-designed compared to ActiveRecord. That said, I have a distinct feeling this is too little, too late. I and my teams have long migrated away from frameworks, to microservices, or what some people call SOA, and we are not looking back. I strongly encourage this design over the old monolithic Rails approach. These are mostly small, highly specialized Sinatra bac…

Can you give done examples of the types of things these micro services do?

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#99

Post by EGreg »

mercer wrote: post #36
Igglyboo wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I was, and am, mostly on the side that argues that client-side javascript support can be assumed to such a degree that it can safely be considered requirement in a lot of cases. However, I do have some reservations of a more 'ideological' nature when it comes to requiring javascript when it isn't strictly necessary. I still believe one of the most powerful things about the web is the (relative) simplicity of the requ…

I'd be curious what you think of this: http://platform.qbix.com/guide/pages

Re: Lotus, a web framework for Ruby

#100

Post by pmontra »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #86
emiller829 wrote: post #38

This is a promising start. I've felt for a while now that we need some strong alternatives to Rails for the folks who feel like the Rails Way and the Ruby Way don't always get along. It still feels a bit DSL-centric from the examples I've seen thus far, and haven't dug into things to see what the generated Ruby looks like -- but if it's anything close to simple, this is something that has a chance to become an import…

For a while, I thought Sinatra was taking that role? It might be interesting to think about what people are looking for that's neither Sinatra nor Rails, or why Sinatra didn't live up to what people were hoping (if people think that). Sometimes I think some of this is just utopian grass-is-greener thinking. While there are _many_ things I'd do differently in Rails if I had the choice (some but certainly not all of wh…

For any project worth talking about Sinatra is too skinny. Basically you have to hack your routing in about the same way you do with Node's Express, enumerating the bindings between routes and methods. Obviously there are clever ways to do it but you end up reimplementing the resourceful routes of Rails.

Another problem is that you really want to use ActiveRecord to access the database. Anything else it too painful. So you end up creating AR models and you have to manually include them.

Finally there are views. I won't even enter into that.

Soon you end up with a worse engineered Rails. I've been using Sinatra only for serving API requests for small projects. I won't touch it for anything else.

Post reply on HN