3 ms·
hug (like Falcon) has way lot of "magic". It seems to be a trend (at least in python webdev world). I have mixed feelings about this. Hug appears to be one of
by njharman 10y ago
hug (like Falcon) has way lot of "magic". It seems to be a trend (at least in python webdev world). I have mixed feelings about this.
Hug appears to be one of those things that is great when all you're doing is very simple but quickly turn into morass of fighting the opinions and magic of framework when doing anything "real".
Also (good) CLI is so different than HTTP that I see only sadness in mashing them into same interface. like having to repeat large amounts of boilerplate decorators to get it to do what you need. The chaining seems it would help with boilerplate at least.
Still, I hope I'm wrong. I want to have a hug. Falcon's lack of validation and documentation means it solves only about 10% of the problem.
- shakna 10y agoI don't use hug's CLI. It exposes a WSGI component that you can send any which way that you feel like, and plug into whatever else you use. Hug also exposes directives, formatters and middleware for you to dive into the nitty gritty - not much magic. Just standard simple decorators.
- mhd 10y agoIs that really a trend? I remember web2py getting a lot of flack because of the amount of magic it used.
- bjt 10y agoFeels more like a pendulum. I remember one of the big pre-1.0 branches of Django was called "removing-the-magic".