5 ms·

Go already has a few microframeworks. What I think it needs is a fat one. It seems the idea of fat frameworks doesn't resonate well with go developers but I don

by dudus 11y ago

Go already has a few microframeworks. What I think it needs is a fat one. It seems the idea of fat frameworks doesn't resonate well with go developers but I don't understand why. Django is the only reason I stick with python today for anything that will have more than five pages. I want form handling, security features such as XSS, CSRF baked in, debug tools such as debug-toolbar and I want to have a basic login feature done for me. Admin would be a plus but is not required. Someone needs to write a good rails/django clone for go.

tmaly 11y ago
I am still using the Go framework Gin. Echo has similar performance, but Gin was there first. I do have to code a bunch of stuff myself as opposed to Django. But if I really wanted to save time, I would just use WordPress.
awzjmi 11y ago
http://beego.me/ http://beego.me/ is a tool mentioned in the benchmarks. it also has a large plugin and community developing behind it.
goldbrick 11y ago
Go doesn't need a fat framework. If you need a fat framework, use Rails or Django. You don't have to (re)write everything in Go, you know.
- rantanplan 11y ago
  Um why? Maybe you mean you don't need one? So if my language of choice is Go, you can somehow guarantee that I won't need a fat framework? How?
  - konart 11y ago
    >So if my language of choice is Go It seems like you are trying to fit everything onto this one choice. This is never a good choice. One should chose technology or stack correcponding to the porblem needed to be solved. Not vice versa. If you need a tool such as Django - you should use one and use Go (both here are for sake of example) for some small tasks, where it can give the most. Building a new "fat" framework just because you like the langauge is kind of strange approach.
    - rantanplan 11y ago
      So in your opinion I should switch to a whole different language/stack? Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's. Sometimes a fat framework is needed.. period. And if you need a fat framework it doesn't mean that you should switch to Ruby or Python, because in your opinion these are languages for building fat frameworks. BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument.
      - konart 11y ago
        >So in your opinion I should switch to a whole different language/stack? In my opinion one should use appropriate tools when building a solution. Using a number of languages or tools that are appropriate for the task is not only normal, but actually gives you better results anytime of the day, not to mention freedom of choice, compared to when you are stuck with "one big thing" >Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's. >Sometimes a fat framework is needed Okay, so name some of the reasons, otherwise mine assumption is only logical. I, personally, can't see any reasons why would you need a fat framework that has to be written in Go and not in Python/Ruby/Java or something else. Seriously, why? >BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument. My argument is that if you need a fat framework - this does not mean it has to be in some specific language. You have something like a counter argument? Please share.
        rantanplan 11y ago
        > My argument is that if you need a fat framework - this does not mean it has to be in some specific language. You have something like a counter argument? Please share. I can't fathom how you can't think of counter arguments. - Because a company invested in Go? - Because they wouldn't want to have to maintain a lot of different technologies/languages, unless it's really necessary? - Because a fat framework in Go is going to be lighter than a fat framework in python/ruby? (memory reqs, cpu, servers, etc) - Because Go is easier to reason with/maintain in large codebases? And still, right now I'd choose python, but I can't understand how someone would hold such strong opinions in such matters. Maybe I've seen too little in my career? Or have I seen too much, so as to not jump in such strong positions so easily? Genuinely curious and that's why I started this thread.
  - debacle 11y ago
    It's not really all that controversial of an opinion to say that no one needs a fat framework in 2016. It's much easier and nicer and more maintainable to use a collection of small tools than one monolithic solution.
    - rantanplan 11y ago
      Nah, not really. It depends on a lot of parameters. First of all you conflate fat with monolithic, which is not necessarily the case. I think that Django is a good example of this. It's a batteries-included framework, but its architecture allows you to strip or replace parts of it. Sometimes it's easier to start from a fat framework and "prune" your way to where you want to go, than instead re-invent the whole universe. Above all, again, it depends.
  - goldbrick 11y ago
    Basically. If a fat framework is what you need, you chose your language poorly.
    - sargas 11y ago
      I think people choose frameworks because they _prefer_ them instead of _needing_ them. If you think you _need_ a framework you need to reevaluate your programming skills.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
pbreit 11y ago
Totally agree, but maybe not quite as fat as Rails/Django. I wonder if just a solid bootstrap app would be sufficient such as Angular Drywall (MEAN stack)? I just want to see the right way to access db, perform basic crud, user accounts & login, db browser/admin, simple view templates.
rubiquity 11y ago
I think if a Rails-type framework is what you need, and you're doing Web development, your problem might be better solved by Elixir and Phoenix[0]. My only caveat to that would be if you need some sort of extreme CPU efficiency as Go has better CPU throughput than Elixir/Erlang. Otherwise, I think you'll find Phoenix's parallels to and lessons learned from Rails along with some nice abstractions around PubSub/WebSockets. 0 - http://www.phoenixframework.org/docs/overview http://www.phoenixframework.org/docs/overview

by dudus 11y ago

tmaly 11y ago

I am still using the Go framework Gin. Echo has similar performance, but Gin was there first. I do have to code a bunch of stuff myself as opposed to Django. But if I really wanted to save time, I would just use WordPress.

awzjmi 11y ago

http://beego.me/ http://beego.me/ is a tool mentioned in the benchmarks. it also has a large plugin and community developing behind it.

goldbrick 11y ago

Go doesn't need a fat framework. If you need a fat framework, use Rails or Django. You don't have to (re)write everything in Go, you know.

rantanplan 11y ago
Um why? Maybe you mean you don't need one? So if my language of choice is Go, you can somehow guarantee that I won't need a fat framework? How?
- konart 11y ago
  >So if my language of choice is Go It seems like you are trying to fit everything onto this one choice. This is never a good choice. One should chose technology or stack correcponding to the porblem needed to be solved. Not vice versa. If you need a tool such as Django - you should use one and use Go (both here are for sake of example) for some small tasks, where it can give the most. Building a new "fat" framework just because you like the langauge is kind of strange approach.
  - rantanplan 11y ago
    So in your opinion I should switch to a whole different language/stack? Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's. Sometimes a fat framework is needed.. period. And if you need a fat framework it doesn't mean that you should switch to Ruby or Python, because in your opinion these are languages for building fat frameworks. BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument.
    - konart 11y ago
      >So in your opinion I should switch to a whole different language/stack? In my opinion one should use appropriate tools when building a solution. Using a number of languages or tools that are appropriate for the task is not only normal, but actually gives you better results anytime of the day, not to mention freedom of choice, compared to when you are stuck with "one big thing" >Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's. >Sometimes a fat framework is needed Okay, so name some of the reasons, otherwise mine assumption is only logical. I, personally, can't see any reasons why would you need a fat framework that has to be written in Go and not in Python/Ruby/Java or something else. Seriously, why? >BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument. My argument is that if you need a fat framework - this does not mean it has to be in some specific language. You have something like a counter argument? Please share.
      - rantanplan 11y ago
        > My argument is that if you need a fat framework - this does not mean it has to be in some specific language. You have something like a counter argument? Please share. I can't fathom how you can't think of counter arguments. - Because a company invested in Go? - Because they wouldn't want to have to maintain a lot of different technologies/languages, unless it's really necessary? - Because a fat framework in Go is going to be lighter than a fat framework in python/ruby? (memory reqs, cpu, servers, etc) - Because Go is easier to reason with/maintain in large codebases? And still, right now I'd choose python, but I can't understand how someone would hold such strong opinions in such matters. Maybe I've seen too little in my career? Or have I seen too much, so as to not jump in such strong positions so easily? Genuinely curious and that's why I started this thread.
- debacle 11y ago
  It's not really all that controversial of an opinion to say that no one needs a fat framework in 2016. It's much easier and nicer and more maintainable to use a collection of small tools than one monolithic solution.
  - rantanplan 11y ago
    Nah, not really. It depends on a lot of parameters. First of all you conflate fat with monolithic, which is not necessarily the case. I think that Django is a good example of this. It's a batteries-included framework, but its architecture allows you to strip or replace parts of it. Sometimes it's easier to start from a fat framework and "prune" your way to where you want to go, than instead re-invent the whole universe. Above all, again, it depends.
- goldbrick 11y ago
  Basically. If a fat framework is what you need, you chose your language poorly.
  - sargas 11y ago
    I think people choose frameworks because they _prefer_ them instead of _needing_ them. If you think you _need_ a framework you need to reevaluate your programming skills.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

pbreit 11y ago

Totally agree, but maybe not quite as fat as Rails/Django. I wonder if just a solid bootstrap app would be sufficient such as Angular Drywall (MEAN stack)? I just want to see the right way to access db, perform basic crud, user accounts & login, db browser/admin, simple view templates.

rubiquity 11y ago

I think if a Rails-type framework is what you need, and you're doing Web development, your problem might be better solved by Elixir and Phoenix[0]. My only caveat to that would be if you need some sort of extreme CPU efficiency as Go has better CPU throughput than Elixir/Erlang. Otherwise, I think you'll find Phoenix's parallels to and lessons learned from Rails along with some nice abstractions around PubSub/WebSockets. 0 - http://www.phoenixframework.org/docs/overview http://www.phoenixframework.org/docs/overview