5 ms·

A battle of the web frameworks

10 points by jmarnold 15y ago

dguaraglia 15y ago
I don't understand where he gets this idea that Django uses an ActionController kind of object. Django provides the facility for you to write a class-based view if you want, but it does not require one. In fact, the only promise Django makes (known as "The Django Contract") is that, given a callable as the endpoint to one of the routes in the urls.py file, it'll execute that callable with the request information and forward whatever you return from that callable as the response to the client. Just based on that I have to take the article with a rather chunky grain of salt; let alone the grandiose statement at the end saying that their framework is the only one that "gets it right". I don't mind the link-baiting to sell your own fish every now and then, but attitudes like the one displayed by the author are definitely not selling me into trying their software.
- jmarnold 15y ago
  I'm not sure why Django was brought into the mix. The view and callback function concepts in Django allow a workflow that is a lot less restrictive than say Rails or ASP.NET MVC. Granted, I submitted the article because I'm one of the principal devs on the framework. However, see my comment above for clarity on what I think the message should be.
bradleyland 15y ago
I'm really confused. I'm not a computer science major, but I've worked with a lot of really talented developers who use Rails to great effect, so I'm struggling to parse this message without dismissing it out of hand. It's difficult to listen and take seriously authors who throw around jargon like punches. As a layman, it strikes me as pedantry. So, can anyone answer the question: Are these concerns objective, or are they just opinion written in a way to make the author sound authoritative on the matter?
- jmarnold 15y ago
  Take it all with a grain of salt. His point is more on a basis of principles and approaches to software design that builds on the quote: "It is practically impossible to teach OO design to students that have had a prior exposure to Rails". Too many variables come into play when devs choose their framework of choice so it's quite the broad sweep to say "Let's put our framework against yours". I think the bigger point is: ".NET finally has some innovative approaches to the web" We've learned from Rails, Django, etc and now we bring something new to the table. Regardless of the tone of the article, that's the message I would like to see be relayed
  - phamilton 15y ago
    The qualifier for most of the recent influx of anti-Rails posts is the same debate we've seen over and over again - Is OO design the end all and be all of design?
    - BiosElement 15y ago
      And the answer to that is, probably not. But it's one of the best we know currently and until a compelling replacement comes along, it'll be used. ^_^
- diminish 15y ago
  unfortunately a low quality article and framework promoted with some strong language, swear and some principles which do not have any coherence. Weak critics of other frameworks without knowledge and substance. The list of principles he counts are non-well-thought selection of random things. the guy seems confused, but needs to talk; he is an enemy of inheritance, and claims such things like "This is only possible with static typing because you can’t get the level of introspection and reflection necessary to pull this off with dynamic typing and string-only reflection." this is not the mvc, OO or rails critic you are looking for. Expect better to come in 2012.

10 points by jmarnold 15y ago

I don't understand where he gets this idea that Django uses an ActionController kind of object. Django provides the facility for you to write a class-based view if you want, but it does not require one. In fact, the only promise Django makes (known as "The Django Contract") is that, given a callable as the endpoint to one of the routes in the urls.py file, it'll execute that callable with the request information and forward whatever you return from that callable as the response to the client. Just based on that I have to take the article with a rather chunky grain of salt; let alone the grandiose statement at the end saying that their framework is the only one that "gets it right". I don't mind the link-baiting to sell your own fish every now and then, but attitudes like the one displayed by the author are definitely not selling me into trying their software.

jmarnold 15y ago
I'm not sure why Django was brought into the mix. The view and callback function concepts in Django allow a workflow that is a lot less restrictive than say Rails or ASP.NET MVC. Granted, I submitted the article because I'm one of the principal devs on the framework. However, see my comment above for clarity on what I think the message should be.

bradleyland 15y ago

I'm really confused. I'm not a computer science major, but I've worked with a lot of really talented developers who use Rails to great effect, so I'm struggling to parse this message without dismissing it out of hand. It's difficult to listen and take seriously authors who throw around jargon like punches. As a layman, it strikes me as pedantry. So, can anyone answer the question: Are these concerns objective, or are they just opinion written in a way to make the author sound authoritative on the matter?

jmarnold 15y ago
Take it all with a grain of salt. His point is more on a basis of principles and approaches to software design that builds on the quote: "It is practically impossible to teach OO design to students that have had a prior exposure to Rails". Too many variables come into play when devs choose their framework of choice so it's quite the broad sweep to say "Let's put our framework against yours". I think the bigger point is: ".NET finally has some innovative approaches to the web" We've learned from Rails, Django, etc and now we bring something new to the table. Regardless of the tone of the article, that's the message I would like to see be relayed
- phamilton 15y ago
  The qualifier for most of the recent influx of anti-Rails posts is the same debate we've seen over and over again - Is OO design the end all and be all of design?
  - BiosElement 15y ago
    And the answer to that is, probably not. But it's one of the best we know currently and until a compelling replacement comes along, it'll be used. ^_^
diminish 15y ago
unfortunately a low quality article and framework promoted with some strong language, swear and some principles which do not have any coherence. Weak critics of other frameworks without knowledge and substance. The list of principles he counts are non-well-thought selection of random things. the guy seems confused, but needs to talk; he is an enemy of inheritance, and claims such things like "This is only possible with static typing because you can’t get the level of introspection and reflection necessary to pull this off with dynamic typing and string-only reflection." this is not the mvc, OO or rails critic you are looking for. Expect better to come in 2012.