21–30 of 79 posts
Nice, but that first sentence (Lift is the most ...) is a little annoying and makes the rest of the site seem less credible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know much about Lift, but I believe foursquare.com is using it.
A framework's website needs a list of links to sites that are using it.
Just out of curiosity can you highlight the advantages lift has over other modern frameworks such as rails or django (and maybe some of the php frameworks). Most (or all) of the 7 things ship with rails 3. Stacking them up against one another might yield a better comparison.
I think that the author is coming from the Java world, in which case the comparison he likely had in mind is not Rails or django, but the plethora of Java web frameworks. Personally, for Java Web Frameworks there are two I like, for quite different reasons. The first is Spring MVC. the rest of Spring can go die in a fire for all I care, but the Spring MVC part is quite nice. Used properly it allows you to very quickl…
It seems to me that it would be really nice for a developer to be able to treat html/javascript/css similar to the way that developers today treat assembler - a very low-level way to the browser to do exactly what you want, but something that the large majority of programmers don't need to know anything about. So that instead of needing to write html/javascript/css, a developer codes to an api that operates at a higher level (in much the same way that developers of GUI applications code to an api that operates at a high level).
Are there web frameworks that insulate developers totally from html/javascript/css? Is this what frameworks like rails/lift/django give you, at least for a limited domain of applications? Is such a framework even possible? Desireable?
Looks like it's great for building the things the authors thought you might want to build. Just like every other "SuperMagic" framework, I suspect there's a lot of pain to be had once you step just a little outside of what it expects you to do with it. We've all re-written Django inside of Django at least once, and thus have been burned by this sort of thing before. Personally, I think I'll wait to see some big proje…
What I like about Rails is that plugins are mostly pieces of infrastructure, not ready-to-use mini-applications that are hard to customize. And Rack plugins (pieces of middleware, done in a standard/reusable way, contrary to Django's middleware) are just awesome.
I also like about Rails that authentication and admin are not built-in. Lots of plugins available for a quick-and-dirty job anyway.
I also like that defining models and even querying has been abstracted away in different interfaces, and that you can use MongoDB in a similar way as you would use a relational database.
Also, in case you need to decouple the request validations from the models (i.e. forms in Django) without HTML-rendering logic attached (useful at times, but completely getting in your way once you try doing anything complicated); in Rails you can, and it looks and feels cleaner because the field types don't have to be related to stuff you're rendering in the HTML response (i.e. field = forms.MultipleChoiceField(widget=CheckboxSelectMultiple)).
Django is awesome in case you ever thought about using Drupal for a project: much more flexible and dev friendly. But it completely got in my way so many times that I actually thought about writing my own Python web framework; which I shouldn't because people have been working on web-related stuff for the past 20 years.
Lift is the most powerful, most secure web framework available today. Sorry, but I failed to understand: is this a web server, a programming language...? I don't exactly get, what it does and for what I should use it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the author is coming from the Java world, in which case the comparison he likely had in mind is not Rails or django, but the plethora of Java web frameworks. Personally, for Java Web Frameworks there are two I like, for quite different reasons. The first is Spring MVC. the rest of Spring can go die in a fire for all I care, but the Spring MVC part is quite nice. Used properly it allows you to very quickl…
Naive question here (I've worked on web apps, but it was using Java technology of the circa 2000 vintage, so my knowledge is quite limited). It seems to me that it would be really nice for a developer to be able to treat html/javascript/css similar to the way that developers today treat assembler - a very low-level way to the browser to do exactly what you want, but something that the large majority of programmers do…
Just out of curiosity can you highlight the advantages lift has over other modern frameworks such as rails or django (and maybe some of the php frameworks). Most (or all) of the 7 things ship with rails 3. Stacking them up against one another might yield a better comparison.
I think that the author is coming from the Java world, in which case the comparison he likely had in mind is not Rails or django, but the plethora of Java web frameworks. Personally, for Java Web Frameworks there are two I like, for quite different reasons. The first is Spring MVC. the rest of Spring can go die in a fire for all I care, but the Spring MVC part is quite nice. Used properly it allows you to very quickl…
Just curious, but which other parts of Spring are you referring to here? The core dependency-injection container?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the author is coming from the Java world, in which case the comparison he likely had in mind is not Rails or django, but the plethora of Java web frameworks. Personally, for Java Web Frameworks there are two I like, for quite different reasons. The first is Spring MVC. the rest of Spring can go die in a fire for all I care, but the Spring MVC part is quite nice. Used properly it allows you to very quickl…
Naive question here (I've worked on web apps, but it was using Java technology of the circa 2000 vintage, so my knowledge is quite limited). It seems to me that it would be really nice for a developer to be able to treat html/javascript/css similar to the way that developers today treat assembler - a very low-level way to the browser to do exactly what you want, but something that the large majority of programmers do…
It is so powerful that similar APIs are being brought to mobile phones, e.g. Silverlight / Qt Quick; but for the record, even Silverlight / Flex are a pain compared to plain HTML / CSS (try building customized components sometimes).
The only problem with HTML / CSS is the browser inconsistencies involved and I'm obviously biased here, but it's nothing compared to what I experienced while developing / testing with Java Swing or wxWidgets.
Cross-platform is a bitch, trying to solve it is nice and all that, but you're going to quickly run into the problem of "leaky abstractions". And for the record, I tried GWT and other web frameworks that tried doing this ... I completely hated every minute of it.
Looks like it's great for building the things the authors thought you might want to build. Just like every other "SuperMagic" framework, I suspect there's a lot of pain to be had once you step just a little outside of what it expects you to do with it. We've all re-written Django inside of Django at least once, and thus have been burned by this sort of thing before. Personally, I think I'll wait to see some big proje…
I've been using Django for a lot of projects, but have recently converted to Rails 3 for a personal project. What I like about Rails is that plugins are mostly pieces of infrastructure, not ready-to-use mini-applications that are hard to customize. And Rack plugins (pieces of middleware, done in a standard/reusable way, contrary to Django's middleware) are just awesome. I also like about Rails that authentication and…
I think you mean Rack plugins (noted b/c Rake is something entirely different in Ruby parlance).