5 ms·

Gatekeeping what should be called "full stack" based on your own requirements seems futile at best. Believe it or not, there are businesses built without using

Gatekeeping what should be called "full stack" based on your own requirements seems futile at best. Believe it or not, there are businesses built without using those things, even though you've never come across that in your life. Besides that, I think the things you're looking for are listed here: https://sveltesociety.dev/components/ https://sveltesociety.dev/components/ Never used Svelte/SvelteKit myself, but seems the framework takes a "some batteries included, others available" approach to the whole thing, which is one way to about it as well.

davedx 5y ago
I really don't think it's fair to call it gatekeeping. The blog title is about using "Sveltekit for full-stack web app development" but if you want to make a full-stack web app, you need more than Sveltekit. Words mean things.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > but if you want to make a full-stack web app, you need more than Sveltekit. To create a full-stack web app you need a frontend and a backend. That's it. You can build a full-stack web app with just NodeJS and HTML files if you so wish (or even write HTML templates in your http handlers from the backend). Nothing in "full-stack" requires having a validation library in order for it to be full-stack, that would more be leaning towards the "batteries included" approach to a framework instead of strictly being about "full-stack". When you frame your argument in a way that implies "it's not a real framework/tool for real life applications unless it has X" is almost exactly how I'd write an example of gatekeeping if I had to.
  - mirzap 5y ago
    No it's not just it. That's small part of it. If you need to pull 30 other packages to your backend or frontend, then your "full stack framework" is not full stack. Check .NET, SpringBoot or even Laravel to some degree to see how "full stack" really looks like. It's entire ecosystem. You rarely go outside of that. Can you develop modern app (with db access, caching, queues, messaging etc.) with just SvelteKit or just Next.js (and their official packages) as dependency? No, you can't. Not without pulling 20 other 3rd party packages. Thus, those are not full stack frameworks. They are nice and convinient opinionated frameworks, that speed up development, but you always relay on other packages to complete the stack.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      Yeah, I guess we have different definitions for them. What you're talking about is what I'd call a "batteries-included" framework, which exists both as frontend, backend and full-stack frameworks. Full-stack just means that you can write your frontend and backend with it, not the amount of functionality it has within.
      - tacker2000 5y ago
        But backend means precisely these things. ORM, DB migrations, caching, etc. You need that for a solid backend. Of course not everybody needs messaging queues for example , but some frameworks support this out of the box and/or have years of integration with popular queues like rabbitmq to look back onto. Imagine how many integration bugs were already solved in that time, which this new framework still has to iron out. Time and experience mean something.
        capableweb 5y ago
        Well, for you, apparently, it does mean those things. But for plenty of us, it doesn't. Why would I need an ORM/DB migrations if everything lives on disk? Why'd I need caching when I already run Varnish in front of the backend? Point being (again), definitions seem to differ, and what you call "full stack" is what I call "batteries-included framework". Full stack simply means (for me) that it gives you a way of building frontend and backend code, but implies nothing about what functionality is included in either part.
        slantyyz 5y ago
        You make it sound like none of these things exist. Sveltekit is part of the NodeJS ecosystem, and there are mature libraries that do many of those things. The only thing is that Sveltekit isn't force feeding any particular library down your throat. When I moved over from Express, I pretty much just continued using the libraries I was already using. If you look at how a lot of people actually use Sveltekit, it seems like they're outsourcing a lot of things like data storage and authentication to third party services. What benefit is provided to those users by baking in functions they don't need?
  - jf22 5y ago
    Of course it's gatekeeping. You need certain feature to be considered a full-stack framework. There are plenty of examples of full-stack apps out there. SveltKit has almost none of the features you need to build a full app. It should be noted in my limited experience I found SveltKit to be really great, but it's barely 1.0 yet, let alone "full stack".
- detaro 5y ago
  > Words mean things. And as the reaction here shows, for lots of people "Full-Stack Web App development" means "spanning frontend and backend", not "frontend and backend and everything you could need for a complex product". And that seems to be shared by many other sources.
  - MadcapJake 5y ago
    Interesting note: the Sveltekit home page never says "full stack" and describes itself as "framework for building web applications of all sizes, with a beautiful development experience and flexible filesystem-based routing". Almost like the SvelteKit folks are aware of the potential gotcha from calling it a "full stack" frameworks. That being said, I am in the "this is full stack" camp due to prior art in the JS community. RoR/Django and their language communities have always been more about including all the parts (one could call it a "complete stack" style) and the JS community has always been about modularity. EmberJS strikes me as the last bastion of complete stack framework in JS (curious if there are others that are lesser known)
- timeon 5y ago
  That is why the title is not "Sveltekit as full-stack web app development"
  - pc86 5y ago
    How is "Sveltekit as full-stack web app development" meaningfully different from "SvelteKit for Full-Stack Web App Development"?
    - sigzero 5y ago
      It's not in the context of the content of the article.
adamors 5y ago
Some gatekeeping is necessary because soon JS frameworks will have redefined everything making it impossible to converse.
- capableweb 5y ago
  - foobarbecue 5y ago
    Yes, and we have a responsibly to guide that evolution. midrus said he was "surprised" that the meaning of full stack is changing to mean all the frontend and a few bits of the backend. I'm also surprised, and disappointed. To me, Django is full-stack. Meteor was full-stack. SvelteKit is not.
- midrus 5y ago
  Language does not matter. What matters are frameworks, tools, ecosystem, libraries and developers availability. All langues are good enough and shit at different things.
midrus 5y ago
Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said. The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack. No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework. I've seen this too many times already. It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks. Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.
- andrew_ 5y ago
  This word play isn't worth the time or effort. Shall we try to apply the meaning of full stack based on my own entry into web development in 1998 when N-Tier development was all the rage? I think not.
- slibhb 5y ago
  You're arguing about configuration vs convention. You can prefer batteries-included frameworks (convention). Other people can prefer a barebones approach (configuration). Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - newlisp 5y ago
    Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client. I wouldn't call it full stack without a database.
    - 5y ago
fullstackchris 5y ago
I disagree, I think it is a fair argument here. Sure, "full stack" as a pure definition would probably only mean at least one part display layer, one part backend layer... but in a framework sense, it's fair to include all these other important capabilities (translation, background jobs, etc.).
csmpltn 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tobr 5y ago
  The top comment in the thread has been “cancelled”? Do you feel like that usage of “cancelled” is stable ground we can all stand on?
  - csmpltn 5y ago
    - newsbinator 5y ago
      > Shunning an individual by accusing them of acting in an unacceptable manner is "cancelling" them isn't it? Yes. But replying to an individual and telling them why they are incorrect and what you believe correct to be isn't shunning and isn't canceling. It's dialog. Reading interesting discussions is the reason I come here and participate. Echo chambers aren't interesting.
    - slantyyz 5y ago
      Who is shunning that person? Nobody's trying to get them fired or boycotted, so where is this "cancelling" happening?
    - detaro 5y ago
      By the same standard, you are "cancelling" capableweb because you accuse them of doing something you find unacceptable (in a worse way, since most people would consider "cancelling" to be a worse accusation than "gate-keeping"). Not really a useful level for the word.
aeze 5y ago
I don't consider what he said gatekeeping, they were valid questions IMO.

davedx 5y ago

I really don't think it's fair to call it gatekeeping. The blog title is about using "Sveltekit for full-stack web app development" but if you want to make a full-stack web app, you need more than Sveltekit. Words mean things.

capableweb 5y ago
> but if you want to make a full-stack web app, you need more than Sveltekit. To create a full-stack web app you need a frontend and a backend. That's it. You can build a full-stack web app with just NodeJS and HTML files if you so wish (or even write HTML templates in your http handlers from the backend). Nothing in "full-stack" requires having a validation library in order for it to be full-stack, that would more be leaning towards the "batteries included" approach to a framework instead of strictly being about "full-stack". When you frame your argument in a way that implies "it's not a real framework/tool for real life applications unless it has X" is almost exactly how I'd write an example of gatekeeping if I had to.
- mirzap 5y ago
  No it's not just it. That's small part of it. If you need to pull 30 other packages to your backend or frontend, then your "full stack framework" is not full stack. Check .NET, SpringBoot or even Laravel to some degree to see how "full stack" really looks like. It's entire ecosystem. You rarely go outside of that. Can you develop modern app (with db access, caching, queues, messaging etc.) with just SvelteKit or just Next.js (and their official packages) as dependency? No, you can't. Not without pulling 20 other 3rd party packages. Thus, those are not full stack frameworks. They are nice and convinient opinionated frameworks, that speed up development, but you always relay on other packages to complete the stack.
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Yeah, I guess we have different definitions for them. What you're talking about is what I'd call a "batteries-included" framework, which exists both as frontend, backend and full-stack frameworks. Full-stack just means that you can write your frontend and backend with it, not the amount of functionality it has within.
    - tacker2000 5y ago
      But backend means precisely these things. ORM, DB migrations, caching, etc. You need that for a solid backend. Of course not everybody needs messaging queues for example , but some frameworks support this out of the box and/or have years of integration with popular queues like rabbitmq to look back onto. Imagine how many integration bugs were already solved in that time, which this new framework still has to iron out. Time and experience mean something.
      - capableweb 5y ago
        Well, for you, apparently, it does mean those things. But for plenty of us, it doesn't. Why would I need an ORM/DB migrations if everything lives on disk? Why'd I need caching when I already run Varnish in front of the backend? Point being (again), definitions seem to differ, and what you call "full stack" is what I call "batteries-included framework". Full stack simply means (for me) that it gives you a way of building frontend and backend code, but implies nothing about what functionality is included in either part.
      - slantyyz 5y ago
        You make it sound like none of these things exist. Sveltekit is part of the NodeJS ecosystem, and there are mature libraries that do many of those things. The only thing is that Sveltekit isn't force feeding any particular library down your throat. When I moved over from Express, I pretty much just continued using the libraries I was already using. If you look at how a lot of people actually use Sveltekit, it seems like they're outsourcing a lot of things like data storage and authentication to third party services. What benefit is provided to those users by baking in functions they don't need?
- jf22 5y ago
  Of course it's gatekeeping. You need certain feature to be considered a full-stack framework. There are plenty of examples of full-stack apps out there. SveltKit has almost none of the features you need to build a full app. It should be noted in my limited experience I found SveltKit to be really great, but it's barely 1.0 yet, let alone "full stack".
detaro 5y ago
> Words mean things. And as the reaction here shows, for lots of people "Full-Stack Web App development" means "spanning frontend and backend", not "frontend and backend and everything you could need for a complex product". And that seems to be shared by many other sources.
- MadcapJake 5y ago
  Interesting note: the Sveltekit home page never says "full stack" and describes itself as "framework for building web applications of all sizes, with a beautiful development experience and flexible filesystem-based routing". Almost like the SvelteKit folks are aware of the potential gotcha from calling it a "full stack" frameworks. That being said, I am in the "this is full stack" camp due to prior art in the JS community. RoR/Django and their language communities have always been more about including all the parts (one could call it a "complete stack" style) and the JS community has always been about modularity. EmberJS strikes me as the last bastion of complete stack framework in JS (curious if there are others that are lesser known)
timeon 5y ago
That is why the title is not "Sveltekit as full-stack web app development"
- pc86 5y ago
  How is "Sveltekit as full-stack web app development" meaningfully different from "SvelteKit for Full-Stack Web App Development"?
  - sigzero 5y ago
    It's not in the context of the content of the article.

adamors 5y ago

Some gatekeeping is necessary because soon JS frameworks will have redefined everything making it impossible to converse.

capableweb 5y ago
- foobarbecue 5y ago
  Yes, and we have a responsibly to guide that evolution. midrus said he was "surprised" that the meaning of full stack is changing to mean all the frontend and a few bits of the backend. I'm also surprised, and disappointed. To me, Django is full-stack. Meteor was full-stack. SvelteKit is not.
midrus 5y ago
Language does not matter. What matters are frameworks, tools, ecosystem, libraries and developers availability. All langues are good enough and shit at different things.

midrus 5y ago

Yes, precisely because I've been involved in maintaining codebases built without real full stack frameworks is why I say what I said. The problem we have in this industry, is that somebody reads these blog posts, and the next day at work they ditch the "legacy rails" and starts rewriting the monolith in sveltekit/nextjs/whatever because that's what he/she has been told is the modern way to do full stack. No need to say those engineers will quit 1 year later after they realize the mess they've created with their lightweight and simple modern framework. I've seen this too many times already. It is not about gatekeeping. It is about engineers being humble and assume it is very likely that their code is very unlikely to be better tested, documented, cohesive and maintained than what you're given in the real full stack frameworks. Of course you can build anything even in assembler if you want. The question is if that's the most useful thing to do with your company's money.

andrew_ 5y ago
This word play isn't worth the time or effort. Shall we try to apply the meaning of full stack based on my own entry into web development in 1998 when N-Tier development was all the rage? I think not.
slibhb 5y ago
You're arguing about configuration vs convention. You can prefer batteries-included frameworks (convention). Other people can prefer a barebones approach (configuration). Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- newlisp 5y ago
  Either way, it's full stack if you can write code that runs on the server and code that runs on the client. I wouldn't call it full stack without a database.
  - 5y ago

fullstackchris 5y ago

I disagree, I think it is a fair argument here. Sure, "full stack" as a pure definition would probably only mean at least one part display layer, one part backend layer... but in a framework sense, it's fair to include all these other important capabilities (translation, background jobs, etc.).

csmpltn 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tobr 5y ago
The top comment in the thread has been “cancelled”? Do you feel like that usage of “cancelled” is stable ground we can all stand on?
- csmpltn 5y ago
  - newsbinator 5y ago
    > Shunning an individual by accusing them of acting in an unacceptable manner is "cancelling" them isn't it? Yes. But replying to an individual and telling them why they are incorrect and what you believe correct to be isn't shunning and isn't canceling. It's dialog. Reading interesting discussions is the reason I come here and participate. Echo chambers aren't interesting.
  - slantyyz 5y ago
    Who is shunning that person? Nobody's trying to get them fired or boycotted, so where is this "cancelling" happening?
  - detaro 5y ago
    By the same standard, you are "cancelling" capableweb because you accuse them of doing something you find unacceptable (in a worse way, since most people would consider "cancelling" to be a worse accusation than "gate-keeping"). Not really a useful level for the word.

aeze 5y ago

I don't consider what he said gatekeeping, they were valid questions IMO.