4 ms·
I don't understand the comparisons presented in the article. Comparing a full stack MVC framework to a front end library is as apples to oranges as it gets. IMH
by lobstrosity420 5y ago
I don't understand the comparisons presented in the article. Comparing a full stack MVC framework to a front end library is as apples to oranges as it gets. IMHO frameworks such as NestJS and Adonis are more comparable to Ruby on Rails.
- antoineMoPa 5y agoI think you don't want to support the article's claims, but you kind of support it by mentionning the choice that you need to make between NestJS and Adonis or any other frameworks. With the ruby ecosystem, there is almost always a clear convention on what to do (example: the conventional choice is to use rails, which leads to a bunch of pre-made choices)
- ta-run 5y agoConventional choice at a framework level isn't really necessary though, is it? I mean, you can read and choose what you like whether it's Nest/Adonis/Blitz or anything else. Once that choice is made everything that follows is opinionated.
- weatherlite 5y agoPart of the problem I think is that none of the JS frameworks became a clear winner in the full stack batteries included framework niche. For Ruby the clear winner is Rails. For Python it's Django. For C# it's .NET. What is it for Node then - I keep getting many names - Nest/Next/Adonis/Blitz/Sails? And lately Redwood? And probably more I'm missing out? It would have been better for Node if there were 1-2 frameworks with huge momentum behind them then 6-8 frameworks that none of them caught a lot of mindshare.
- jack_riminton 5y agoI think there should be a RailsJS where they literally copy every convention of RoR
- redbar0n 5y agoSailsJS is that. But people warn against using it.
- lobstrosity420 5y agoSo long as that is in fact the point of the article, I agree completely. However I'd still have to point out that comparing the Rails framework to solutions which do not try to fill the same role such as React made for a confusing article.