4 ms·

> Or is it just being able to run code on the server enough to be "full stack"? To me, "full stack" would entail having responsibility for logic on both the fr

> Or is it just being able to run code on the server enough to be "full stack"? To me, "full stack" would entail having responsibility for logic on both the front-end and back-end, which Fresh does. Personally, I would not consider Laravel a full stack framework (Although it can work well with front-end frameworks to make a full-stack application). Instead I'd consider it a back-end framework.

likortera 4y ago
In the case of laravel, I think that having by default a pretty awesome templating system (which even allows for components), a webpack based build system for frontend assets, easy way to serve, cache and bust assets, and a trivially easy way to submit forms and validate user input makes it pretty full stack. Same for Rails, and not event talking about HotWire/LiveWire with might not be considered parts of the framework per se. To me Laravels is pretty more close to a "full stack" framework than Fresh to be honest.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  In today's world that's not frontend enough (as much as it pains me to say). You need to ship at least a few MBs of JS to prove you are a real frontend engineer.
  - likortera 4y ago
    haha, lol... So I'm a top 1% dev then :). I have all the megabytes in my frontend.
- luismanfroni 4y ago
  Not here to defend Fresh, it has lot of flaws, but > I think that having by default a pretty awesome templating system (which even allows for components), a webpack based build system for frontend assets Fresh literally does that "by default" without having to include any library/dependency. > easy way to serve, cache and bust assets, and a trivially easy way to submit forms and validate user input. It's almost the same effort in Fresh. > makes it pretty full stack Define fullstack, but even defining it, Fresh totally covers what you said. To be "fullstack" to me means to be filling in all stacks, being in web? Frontend and Backend. To me, having a templating system and having things rendered in backend can be "frontend", but you saying "Laravels is pretty more close to a fullstack framework than Fresh" is not something very logic here.

likortera 4y ago

In the case of laravel, I think that having by default a pretty awesome templating system (which even allows for components), a webpack based build system for frontend assets, easy way to serve, cache and bust assets, and a trivially easy way to submit forms and validate user input makes it pretty full stack. Same for Rails, and not event talking about HotWire/LiveWire with might not be considered parts of the framework per se. To me Laravels is pretty more close to a "full stack" framework than Fresh to be honest.

jokethrowaway 4y ago
In today's world that's not frontend enough (as much as it pains me to say). You need to ship at least a few MBs of JS to prove you are a real frontend engineer.
- likortera 4y ago
  haha, lol... So I'm a top 1% dev then :). I have all the megabytes in my frontend.
luismanfroni 4y ago
Not here to defend Fresh, it has lot of flaws, but > I think that having by default a pretty awesome templating system (which even allows for components), a webpack based build system for frontend assets Fresh literally does that "by default" without having to include any library/dependency. > easy way to serve, cache and bust assets, and a trivially easy way to submit forms and validate user input. It's almost the same effort in Fresh. > makes it pretty full stack Define fullstack, but even defining it, Fresh totally covers what you said. To be "fullstack" to me means to be filling in all stacks, being in web? Frontend and Backend. To me, having a templating system and having things rendered in backend can be "frontend", but you saying "Laravels is pretty more close to a fullstack framework than Fresh" is not something very logic here.