3 ms·
Someone on HN previously mentioned that every project they've started with Sinatra, they've regretted down the road that they didn't use Rails. I think the com
by abhchand 8y ago
Someone on HN previously mentioned that every project they've started with Sinatra, they've regretted down the road that they didn't use Rails.
I think the complaints about Sinatra are vaild, in that it needs to limit how params are accessed, better startup documentation, etc... But ultimately Sinatra is for building super simple crud apps. I don't even use it for anything that accesses something more than a SQLlite DB. I often use it for serving up basic front end assets and running single page applications that have some small server side component to them.
It's footprint is lighter than rails, but so is it's intended functionality.
- nine_k 8y agoI suppose it's a selection bias. You likely heard about projects that achieved some significance, which requires some sophistication which Rails provides. I suppose there's a number of very small, non-public projects that have, say, 10-20 users doing a relatively trivial thing, and are just fine on Sinatra (or web.py, or maybe even a plain CGI script). But they never catch much attention.
- dreix 8y agoFor years I have never looked back. If I had a project that outgrew its purpose I wrote it again, and dropped half of its functionality without looking back.