5 ms·

I feel bad about projects like these, I really do. I'm sure a lot of effort have been put in and it probably satisfies what OP wants to do. But in the end, no o

I feel bad about projects like these, I really do. I'm sure a lot of effort have been put in and it probably satisfies what OP wants to do. But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it.

IanCal 8y ago
Can you add some more here? Personally I'd probably not use this as I'm already using something with the same aim (dash), I certainly use a project like this for serious things.
- rococode 8y ago
  I think what OP means is that for someone whose goal is to start a successful business, using a more obscure and new framework is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. There's nothing significant enough that a framework like this provides that justifies 1) the difficulty finding people with appropriate experience, 2) relying on something that may become unmaintained, and 3) an immature ecosystem that means having to deal with tricky problems as you build more complex functionality because you're among the first people to need it. Of course, there's the "just looking to build something (serious or not) and not concerned about it becoming a profitable business" group of people - like you, perhaps - and that's great! But it generally takes a lot of enthusiasts before a library becomes accepted as mainstream and a certain amount of luck is required for that to happen.
  - pmontra 8y ago
    Obscure, yes because it's version 4.0.0 and it's around since 2006 and I never heard about it. New, no. From the few examples in the README I'd say that it makes development more complex than using the usual server side rendering approaches. I'm also not sure Python is the best language for this sort of things. Better than Java but usually Ruby is better at DSLs.
macspoofing 8y ago
>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. JavaScript pretty much guarantees shit code. I'll be downvoted to hell, but whatever. Js sucks.
  - sl1ck731 8y ago
    I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely. Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python. The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and any number of other people who don't take the backend as seriously as someone who has been devoted to it using a non-javascript language. I think the other issue is the javascript community wants to reinvent itself every couple months, instead of having one project that becomes defacto for x function over many years.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      Npm might be a good tool like pip. But unlike pip it encourages installing shit. Even react which from limited experience is pretty cool. But apparently there must be dozens possibly hundreds of true senior devs in the US. Most everyone else fucks it up. And I agree there is a shallow depth in the js world. Everyone wants the new shiny toy instead of using an evolving toolkit. JS is the embodiment of ADD.
zaro 8y ago
And for a good reason. These frameworks usually make development much harder than simply using JS directly.
raverbashing 8y ago
Yeah, we've been there before with other libraries (GWT and others). It never works well.
danpalmer 8y ago
Would anyone serious use this as the frontend for a customer facing website? Maybe not. Would anyone use this for “line of business” applications? Internal tools? The signed-in experience on an enterprisey product? Most definitely. Guess which one 90% of software falls into. I work at a tech company, we sell to consumers, we’d never use this for customer facing stuff, but being able to rapidly build web apps that show tabular data and editing controls with various integrations with our services for internal customers and partners is critical. If we built that as fancy React apps all the time we’d never get anywhere.
coldtea 8y ago
>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. You'd be surprised. Many highly successful websites and services use non-mainstream projects. Besides that trite observation could have been said for any project (even the most successful ones like Rails) when they first started.

IanCal 8y ago

Can you add some more here? Personally I'd probably not use this as I'm already using something with the same aim (dash), I certainly use a project like this for serious things.

rococode 8y ago
I think what OP means is that for someone whose goal is to start a successful business, using a more obscure and new framework is akin to shooting yourself in the foot. There's nothing significant enough that a framework like this provides that justifies 1) the difficulty finding people with appropriate experience, 2) relying on something that may become unmaintained, and 3) an immature ecosystem that means having to deal with tricky problems as you build more complex functionality because you're among the first people to need it. Of course, there's the "just looking to build something (serious or not) and not concerned about it becoming a profitable business" group of people - like you, perhaps - and that's great! But it generally takes a lot of enthusiasts before a library becomes accepted as mainstream and a certain amount of luck is required for that to happen.
- pmontra 8y ago
  Obscure, yes because it's version 4.0.0 and it's around since 2006 and I never heard about it. New, no. From the few examples in the README I'd say that it makes development more complex than using the usual server side rendering approaches. I'm also not sure Python is the best language for this sort of things. Better than Java but usually Ruby is better at DSLs.

macspoofing 8y ago

>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. Why not? I would say it is the other way around. For any web application project of decent size there is almost always a transpilation step that converts whatever programming language your source code is in, into JavaScript (usually ES5). We also had very successful and widely used projects like GWT for years (GWT was first released in 2006!!!).

paulie_a 8y ago
Transpiling to JavaScript is a bug on the web, not a feature. node and npm is a shit show. Having to deal with it a couple days ago. I wish that entire ecosystem would just die. I can make a sophisticated python web app with 20 packages. Or in JavaScript I'll need a few hundred that have massive vulnerabilities and conflicts. Hell npm reported the most modern packages I was installing had over 200 vulnerabilities. JavaScript pretty much guarantees shit code. I'll be downvoted to hell, but whatever. Js sucks.
- sl1ck731 8y ago
  I think this is a symptom of being accessible not the language or its tools. NPM is fantastic and anytime I use Go or anything like that I miss it sorely. Even javascript itself isn't "bad". There are ugly parts but anything written in the modern spec is basically semantically the same as any other language like python. The problem is that people writing packages on the backend are bootcamp grads, frontend devs, and any number of other people who don't take the backend as seriously as someone who has been devoted to it using a non-javascript language. I think the other issue is the javascript community wants to reinvent itself every couple months, instead of having one project that becomes defacto for x function over many years.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Npm might be a good tool like pip. But unlike pip it encourages installing shit. Even react which from limited experience is pretty cool. But apparently there must be dozens possibly hundreds of true senior devs in the US. Most everyone else fucks it up. And I agree there is a shallow depth in the js world. Everyone wants the new shiny toy instead of using an evolving toolkit. JS is the embodiment of ADD.

zaro 8y ago

And for a good reason. These frameworks usually make development much harder than simply using JS directly.

raverbashing 8y ago

Yeah, we've been there before with other libraries (GWT and others). It never works well.

danpalmer 8y ago

Would anyone serious use this as the frontend for a customer facing website? Maybe not. Would anyone use this for “line of business” applications? Internal tools? The signed-in experience on an enterprisey product? Most definitely. Guess which one 90% of software falls into. I work at a tech company, we sell to consumers, we’d never use this for customer facing stuff, but being able to rapidly build web apps that show tabular data and editing controls with various integrations with our services for internal customers and partners is critical. If we built that as fancy React apps all the time we’d never get anywhere.

coldtea 8y ago

>But in the end, no one serious would ever consider using it. You'd be surprised. Many highly successful websites and services use non-mainstream projects. Besides that trite observation could have been said for any project (even the most successful ones like Rails) when they first started.