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

(fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

fabjs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–27 of 27 posts

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#21

Post by jerf »

tr4nslator wrote: post #2

Hey all, I just launched a dead-simple web framework on top of node.js. It uses (abuses?) a lot of the dynamic nature of javascript to create a jQuery-inspired DSL that's pure javascript, allowing you to create really concise web apps like this: ( fab ) ( "/time", function(){ return "the time is " + (new Date).toTimeString() } ) ( "/date", function(){ return "the date is " + (new Date).toDateString() } ) ( fab ) I'd…

The problem I've had with writing stuff like this is that if you go too far out of your way to hide the fact that this is still just Javascript, you get a lot of people who don't realize that it is just Javascript and you can do what you want.

What if you want to dynamically create stuff? You can take the value of fab, use standard for loops and if statements and whatnot to apply things to it, then call fab again at the end and it'll all work fine. By hiding in a DSL here, you encourage people to not realize that, and take away the ability for these people to use the Javascript they already know to build the system. Another manifestation of this general principle is that you may get people who don't realize that they can define a function elsewhere then include it as an argument.

Please don't laugh or tell me this is impossible. I used to think that too. Experience has bludgeoned me over the head on this, rather against my will.

Magic really ought to be reserved for things that can't be done without magic. Method chaining is becoming a standard JS technique (even though I don't like it, for pretty much this same reason albeit more weakly as it is less of a departure) and I don't see a reason not to just use method chaining here.

If I don't miss my guess, as you develop this you're going to miss having it anyhow and have to switch to it anyhow. You're almost certain to end up having more than one type of thing go in those arguments, and the alternative will be either returning to method chaining, or using the first argument to do nothing other than switch on which method you actually call. (And that is honestly just silly because the language already has perfectly cromulent facilities for doing that.)

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#22

Post by tr4nslator »

jerf wrote: post #21
tr4nslator wrote: post #2

Hey all, I just launched a dead-simple web framework on top of node.js. It uses (abuses?) a lot of the dynamic nature of javascript to create a jQuery-inspired DSL that's pure javascript, allowing you to create really concise web apps like this: ( fab ) ( "/time", function(){ return "the time is " + (new Date).toTimeString() } ) ( "/date", function(){ return "the date is " + (new Date).toDateString() } ) ( fab ) I'd…

The problem I've had with writing stuff like this is that if you go too far out of your way to hide the fact that this is still just Javascript, you get a lot of people who don't realize that it is just Javascript and you can do what you want. What if you want to dynamically create stuff? You can take the value of fab, use standard for loops and if statements and whatnot to apply things to it, then call fab again at…

I actually think this is less magical than most approaches, since there's no pre-compilation or "with" scoping magic. Sinatra's hello world is awesome, until you realize that a lot of the cool stuff is scoping magic that you have to throw out when your app has to play nicely with others.

My original approach for (fab) was like jQuery:

  fab()
    .find( path )
      .bind( method, handler )
      .find( subpath )
        .bind( method, handler )
      .end()
    .end()
  .end()
but I realized that I could simplify things by getting rid of methods entirely, and reserving methods for HTTP methods and status codes.

As for people not realizing they can define functions outside of the DSL, I'm hoping that the extensibility of middleware will mitigate that, just as the ecosystem of plugins did for jQuery.

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#23

Post by extension »

boucher wrote: post #11
amix wrote: post #9

Stuff like (fab) and CoffeeScript* show how easy it is to build on top of the V8 and node.js platform. And these toy languages/frameworks also have great perfomance given the non-blocking nature of node.js and the optimizations of V8. Amazing and happy to see more of these projects :) * http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/

CoffeeScript is a language. It doesn't run natively on node.js, so I don't really see the relationship here.

Here's a relationship: if I was going to write all my web apps in JavaScript, I would want something like CoffeeScript to ease the pain.

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#24

Post by amix »

boucher wrote: post #11
amix wrote: post #9

Stuff like (fab) and CoffeeScript* show how easy it is to build on top of the V8 and node.js platform. And these toy languages/frameworks also have great perfomance given the non-blocking nature of node.js and the optimizations of V8. Amazing and happy to see more of these projects :) * http://jashkenas.github.com/coffee-script/

CoffeeScript is a language. It doesn't run natively on node.js, so I don't really see the relationship here.

CoffeeScript compiles to JavaScript and it can run natively on V8/node.js (since V8/node.js executes JavaScript)...

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#25

Post by thenduks »

cmelbye wrote: post #20
netghost wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100:0 From what I can tell, but that being said, they're all coalescing into something interesting.

Exactly what I'm thinking also. There are a plethora of frameworks, but they all bring something cool to the table. I'm still wondering how viable it is for web development, however (just because of how it hasn't really caught on yet while having many chances to.)

I think it hasn't caught on yet because there's no (last time I was around anyway) solid, decent, recommended deployment strategies.

It was once suggested to me on IRC to use only one instance of a node app because it's "non-blocking"... I'm serious: "why would you need more than one?".

Obviously you can deploy well enough using a monitoring app to keep up as many workers as you want, but compared to stuff like passenger it's just not mature enough.

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#26

Post by theli0nheart »

jfager wrote: post #10
uggedal wrote: post #7

Unfortunate name: The Fabric Python deployment tool uses the fab binary and uses fab files for configuring deployments: http://docs.fabfile.org/

Why should a javascript library defer to the abbreviated name of a minor python-land command line tool?

It's actually not that minor...

Re: (fab) - A pure javascript DSL for building async web apps

#27

Post by malvim »

tr4nslator wrote: post #17
malvim wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had taken a look at it before, and was wondering: Is there a way we can do long-polling stuff with fab? (by "long-polling stuff" I mean deferring response.finish())

Indeed you can. (fab) is 100% async: http://gist.github.com/287475#file_hello_async.js

Ooh, that's pretty cool. I like the way you receive a "respond" function and call it when you're done. Nice work!
Post reply on HN