4 ms·

Django has had an automatic admin site since 2006 or earlier, this isn't a game changer for me.

alharith 7y ago
Yeah, pfft, Java EE has had this since the early 2000s too. What's old is new again, amirite??
cpursley 7y ago
So has Rails via Active Admin. The advantage is React Admin is back end agnostic and you can tap into the huge React ecosystem. And with Hasura you get automatic GraphQL endpoints (Django nor Rails Active Admin do this - you have to create models first vs just a schema with Hasura) which can be used for more than just your admin backend.
- yen223 7y ago
  Having built and maintained large Django apps for the past couple of years, I personally prefer Hasura's admin console over Django's one, not least because you don't need to write any code to get it started! Hasura also ships with websocket support, something that Django has always struggled with.
michelpp 7y ago
These aren't the same things. Hasura is not an admin interface, although it provides something like one. It's an application API. The django admin interface is not usable by a frontend as an application API. Django requires you to "meta-model" you have to write Python classes that map to your tables, this is usually duplicate work. Django's ORM must support many databases, so it produces "least common denominator" SQL and is (stock) oblivious to Postgres' many enhanced data features, you are forced to use various community sourced extensions to get access to features that have been in postgres now for many years. Django's security system is django only. You are forced to go through django for access control across your business. Eventually this abstraction leaks, and someone starts logging into the db from some other framework and now you have two problems. This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it, but Django, Rails, Node, all the Java frameworks, all the meta-modeling and NIH syndroming, are all utterly obsolete. Everything they do can be done in 99% SQL by a data scientist with the help of a competent DBA. "Web application programming" is going to go the way of the dodo bird and devs who don't start learning higher level skills like complex SQL, statistical modeling, linear algebra, and to either be a competent DBA or learn how to treat them fairly with be the first batch of programmers "automated out of a job" by tools like Hasura.
- RussianCow 7y ago
  > Django requires you to "meta-model" you have to write Python classes that map to your tables, this is usually duplicate work. You don't have to duplicate any work because you don't actually have to write any raw SQL, since it all gets translated by Django. So yes, there's an extra layer of abstraction there, but no duplication on the developer's part. > Django's ORM must support many databases, so it produces "least common denominator" SQL and is (stock) oblivious to Postgres' many enhanced data features, you are forced to use various community sourced extensions to get access to features that have been in postgres now for many years. Practically every Django release adds support for more and more database-specific features out of the box, to the point where I don't remember the last time I had to use a third-party library to take advantage of a PostgreSQL feature. But even if you do, so what? It's no different than using a Postgres extension. The HUGE advantage that ORMs like Django, Rails, etc have over writing raw SQL is their composability. Django provides lots of tools that make it VERY easy to reuse code relating to models and querysets, whereas SQL is notoriously difficult to keep DRY. And this issue gets significantly worse when you start to pull in data that lives outside of the DB. On top of that, there is the more obvious issue that good DBAs are rare and expensive compared to Python/Ruby/whatever engineers. > Django's security system is django only. You are forced to go through django for access control across your business. Eventually this abstraction leaks, and someone starts logging into the db from some other framework and now you have two problems. I do completely agree with this, and I think it's Django's weakest point by far. But you can always forego the ORM's integrity/trigger features and add those at the database level in your migrations. > This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it, but Django, Rails, Node, all the Java frameworks, all the meta-modeling and NIH syndroming, are all utterly obsolete. Hasura and related projects are really great, don't get me wrong, but this is outright FUD. There are pros and cons to both approaches, and to claim that one is "utterly obsolete" is nonsense. There are lots of situations in which turning the database into your API just doesn't make sense.
  - michelpp 7y ago
    > You don't have to duplicate any work because you don't actually have to write any raw SQL, since it all gets translated by Django. So yes, there's an extra layer of abstraction there, but no duplication on the developer's part. There is still some duplication of effort, for example when you change the model, yes django will create the migration script for you, but you always have to verify it and often change it especially when you're merging branches. And since the migrator only supports a subset of postgres' DDL abilities, even simple things like renaming objects, or applying advanced indexing techniques you often have to write hand sql migrations anyway, which require you knowing sql, so why not just do all in sql? > Hasura and related projects are really great, don't get me wrong, but this is outright FUD. There are pros and cons to both approaches, and to claim that one is "utterly obsolete" is nonsense. There are lots of situations in which turning the database into your API just doesn't make sense. It was a strong statement of an unpopular opinion, but FUD is a fundamentally dishonest statement, and I did clearly prefix my statement with "This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it". As someone who knows my opinions well you know I honestly believe it. But that's ok I appreciate you keeping me on my toes when the coffee gets me in an agitated state! That being said, I still do believe it. I do pick on Django pretty hard, but I feel the same way about many of the Python frameworks to a certain degree and the "web application framework" pattern in general. Django is just the one I have seen the most bloviated circumlocution of code to do simple tasks with, and often when I have run into problems with Django, it was usually Django's fault (ahem, autocommit) not the developers. It's a classic foot gun. A recent example I have had to boggle at, a half dozen AppEngine microservices, cross calling each other with http RPC all autocommiting to 3 different postgres databases with less than 100k rows of data total. The microservices were entirely responsible for maintaining referential integrity entirely defeating the point of using postgres in the first place. The whole thing could have been a set of simple functions, much of the heavy lifting could have been done with some simple triggers. But instead "microservices". That worked ok when there was only one instance of each service, but then when app engine scaled up it became a knot of race conditions.

Yeah, pfft, Java EE has had this since the early 2000s too. What's old is new again, amirite??

So has Rails via Active Admin. The advantage is React Admin is back end agnostic and you can tap into the huge React ecosystem. And with Hasura you get automatic GraphQL endpoints (Django nor Rails Active Admin do this - you have to create models first vs just a schema with Hasura) which can be used for more than just your admin backend.

yen223 7y ago
Having built and maintained large Django apps for the past couple of years, I personally prefer Hasura's admin console over Django's one, not least because you don't need to write any code to get it started! Hasura also ships with websocket support, something that Django has always struggled with.

michelpp 7y ago

These aren't the same things. Hasura is not an admin interface, although it provides something like one. It's an application API. The django admin interface is not usable by a frontend as an application API. Django requires you to "meta-model" you have to write Python classes that map to your tables, this is usually duplicate work. Django's ORM must support many databases, so it produces "least common denominator" SQL and is (stock) oblivious to Postgres' many enhanced data features, you are forced to use various community sourced extensions to get access to features that have been in postgres now for many years. Django's security system is django only. You are forced to go through django for access control across your business. Eventually this abstraction leaks, and someone starts logging into the db from some other framework and now you have two problems. This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it, but Django, Rails, Node, all the Java frameworks, all the meta-modeling and NIH syndroming, are all utterly obsolete. Everything they do can be done in 99% SQL by a data scientist with the help of a competent DBA. "Web application programming" is going to go the way of the dodo bird and devs who don't start learning higher level skills like complex SQL, statistical modeling, linear algebra, and to either be a competent DBA or learn how to treat them fairly with be the first batch of programmers "automated out of a job" by tools like Hasura.

RussianCow 7y ago
> Django requires you to "meta-model" you have to write Python classes that map to your tables, this is usually duplicate work. You don't have to duplicate any work because you don't actually have to write any raw SQL, since it all gets translated by Django. So yes, there's an extra layer of abstraction there, but no duplication on the developer's part. > Django's ORM must support many databases, so it produces "least common denominator" SQL and is (stock) oblivious to Postgres' many enhanced data features, you are forced to use various community sourced extensions to get access to features that have been in postgres now for many years. Practically every Django release adds support for more and more database-specific features out of the box, to the point where I don't remember the last time I had to use a third-party library to take advantage of a PostgreSQL feature. But even if you do, so what? It's no different than using a Postgres extension. The HUGE advantage that ORMs like Django, Rails, etc have over writing raw SQL is their composability. Django provides lots of tools that make it VERY easy to reuse code relating to models and querysets, whereas SQL is notoriously difficult to keep DRY. And this issue gets significantly worse when you start to pull in data that lives outside of the DB. On top of that, there is the more obvious issue that good DBAs are rare and expensive compared to Python/Ruby/whatever engineers. > Django's security system is django only. You are forced to go through django for access control across your business. Eventually this abstraction leaks, and someone starts logging into the db from some other framework and now you have two problems. I do completely agree with this, and I think it's Django's weakest point by far. But you can always forego the ORM's integrity/trigger features and add those at the database level in your migrations. > This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it, but Django, Rails, Node, all the Java frameworks, all the meta-modeling and NIH syndroming, are all utterly obsolete. Hasura and related projects are really great, don't get me wrong, but this is outright FUD. There are pros and cons to both approaches, and to claim that one is "utterly obsolete" is nonsense. There are lots of situations in which turning the database into your API just doesn't make sense.
- michelpp 7y ago
  > You don't have to duplicate any work because you don't actually have to write any raw SQL, since it all gets translated by Django. So yes, there's an extra layer of abstraction there, but no duplication on the developer's part. There is still some duplication of effort, for example when you change the model, yes django will create the migration script for you, but you always have to verify it and often change it especially when you're merging branches. And since the migrator only supports a subset of postgres' DDL abilities, even simple things like renaming objects, or applying advanced indexing techniques you often have to write hand sql migrations anyway, which require you knowing sql, so why not just do all in sql? > Hasura and related projects are really great, don't get me wrong, but this is outright FUD. There are pros and cons to both approaches, and to claim that one is "utterly obsolete" is nonsense. There are lots of situations in which turning the database into your API just doesn't make sense. It was a strong statement of an unpopular opinion, but FUD is a fundamentally dishonest statement, and I did clearly prefix my statement with "This is my opinion and I'm sure I'll get downvoted for it". As someone who knows my opinions well you know I honestly believe it. But that's ok I appreciate you keeping me on my toes when the coffee gets me in an agitated state! That being said, I still do believe it. I do pick on Django pretty hard, but I feel the same way about many of the Python frameworks to a certain degree and the "web application framework" pattern in general. Django is just the one I have seen the most bloviated circumlocution of code to do simple tasks with, and often when I have run into problems with Django, it was usually Django's fault (ahem, autocommit) not the developers. It's a classic foot gun. A recent example I have had to boggle at, a half dozen AppEngine microservices, cross calling each other with http RPC all autocommiting to 3 different postgres databases with less than 100k rows of data total. The microservices were entirely responsible for maintaining referential integrity entirely defeating the point of using postgres in the first place. The whole thing could have been a set of simple functions, much of the heavy lifting could have been done with some simple triggers. But instead "microservices". That worked ok when there was only one instance of each service, but then when app engine scaled up it became a knot of race conditions.