5 ms·

There's no "clear winner", there are pretty wildly differing opinions on the right approach to things. Yesod puts the most effort into marketing, and seems to

There's no "clear winner", there are pretty wildly differing opinions on the right approach to things. Yesod puts the most effort into marketing, and seems to pull in the most non-haskellers. The haskell community is kind of split on it, the rampant and unnecessary use of template haskell and quasi-quotation is frowned upon by many, and portions of yesod aren't composable as a result of their DSL obsession. Yesod gives you templating and persistence out of the box, but the template engine is a love it or hate it deal, and persistent isn't mature enough to use with an RDBMS backend. Snap gives you templating, but no persistence out of the box. The template engine doesn't give you compile time type safety, but it also contains no logic, it is an html template system like lift. If you want to talk to a database, you use whatever haskell module you want, there's nothing snap-specific about it. Happstack is basically the same deal as snap, but early on was pretty heavily focused on their own acid-state storage system. It has since become much more storage agnostic, and the acid-state storage system is used outside of happstack now. Between happstack and snap, happstack has better docs, including tutorials on how to integrate with a ton of different web related modules (different template systems, digestive-functors, etc). Snap has a better web server underlying it, and subjectively appears to have more developers actively working on it. Because both allow you to use whatever modules you like quite easily, migrating an app from one framework to the other is pretty easy. Migrating from snap or happstack to yesod or the other way is quite a lot more effort.

maxcan 15y ago
> Yesod puts the most effort into marketing How is this the case? Compare http://yesodweb.com http://yesodweb.com and http://snapframework.com/ http://snapframework.com/ and tell me you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? > persistent isn't mature enough to use with an RDBMS backend. How so? Also, Persistent is still at 0.9, so the version number would agree. Any persistence layer you use with Snap or Happstack is just as easy to use in Yesod too. > Snap has a better web server underlying it Again, how so?
- papsosouid 15y ago
  >you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? I didn't say yesod had the best website, I said they put the most effort into marketing. Michael and Greg do a lot of talking about yesod, and are the only haskell framework attempting to draw in people from outside of haskell. You seem to have interpreted this as an insult, it was not. Usage increases with awareness. >How so? Unless you are using your RDBMS like a dumb storage system, then persistent doesn't provide the tools to access it. We're not talking advanced stuff here, the most basic fundamentals were done incorrectly: it requires int primary keys on all tables for crying out loud. Obviously multi-column foreign keys just went out the window then too. Of all our apps here, not even the most trivial could be ported to yesod using persistent. >Any persistence layer you use with Snap or Happstack is just as easy to use in Yesod too. Certainly. But the major difference between yesod and snap initially appears to be "yesod provides high level DB access and snap doesn't". This may be true of mongo DB (I have no use for it), but for an RDBMS it actually ends up being that neither provides high level DB access, and you have to use something from hackage. >Again, how so? Happstack's webserver has several issues, space usage being a major one. This isn't a controversial statement, Jeremy will tell you the same thing, it is why he's focusing on replacing happstack-server.
  - maxcan 15y ago
    >> you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? > I didn't say yesod had the best website, I said they put the most effort into marketing. Michael and Greg do a lot of talking about yesod, and are the only haskell framework attempting to draw in people from outside of haskell. You seem to have interpreted this as an insult, it was not. Usage increases with awareness. There was a heavy implication that they market at the expense of engineer. > Unless you are using your RDBMS like a dumb storage system, then persistent doesn't provide the tools to access it. We're not talking advanced stuff here, the most basic fundamentals were done incorrectly: it requires int primary keys on all tables for crying out loud. Obviously multi-column foreign keys just went out the window then too. Of all our apps here, not even the most trivial could be ported to yesod using persistent. Fair enough. We try to stick to the "dumb storage system" model because it gives us a lot of flexibility and makes scaling easier. If you're integrating an existing DB, yeah, it sucks. If starting from scratch, its pretty awesome. But remember, Persistent != Yesod. You'll notice yesod-core doesn't depend on persistent at all. > Certainly. But the major difference between yesod and snap initially appears to be "yesod provides high level DB access and snap doesn't". This may be true of mongo DB (I have no use for it), but for an RDBMS it actually ends up being that neither provides high level DB access, and you have to use something from hackage. [[citation needed]] I think the principle difference is that Yesod plays to Haskell's strengths in being "radically typesafe". The amount of errors we see in compiled Yesod code is shockingly minimal.

maxcan 15y ago

> Yesod puts the most effort into marketing How is this the case? Compare http://yesodweb.com http://yesodweb.com and http://snapframework.com/ http://snapframework.com/ and tell me you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? > persistent isn't mature enough to use with an RDBMS backend. How so? Also, Persistent is still at 0.9, so the version number would agree. Any persistence layer you use with Snap or Happstack is just as easy to use in Yesod too. > Snap has a better web server underlying it Again, how so?

papsosouid 15y ago
>you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? I didn't say yesod had the best website, I said they put the most effort into marketing. Michael and Greg do a lot of talking about yesod, and are the only haskell framework attempting to draw in people from outside of haskell. You seem to have interpreted this as an insult, it was not. Usage increases with awareness. >How so? Unless you are using your RDBMS like a dumb storage system, then persistent doesn't provide the tools to access it. We're not talking advanced stuff here, the most basic fundamentals were done incorrectly: it requires int primary keys on all tables for crying out loud. Obviously multi-column foreign keys just went out the window then too. Of all our apps here, not even the most trivial could be ported to yesod using persistent. >Any persistence layer you use with Snap or Happstack is just as easy to use in Yesod too. Certainly. But the major difference between yesod and snap initially appears to be "yesod provides high level DB access and snap doesn't". This may be true of mongo DB (I have no use for it), but for an RDBMS it actually ends up being that neither provides high level DB access, and you have to use something from hackage. >Again, how so? Happstack's webserver has several issues, space usage being a major one. This isn't a controversial statement, Jeremy will tell you the same thing, it is why he's focusing on replacing happstack-server.
- maxcan 15y ago
  >> you really believe that the yesod guys are marketers? > I didn't say yesod had the best website, I said they put the most effort into marketing. Michael and Greg do a lot of talking about yesod, and are the only haskell framework attempting to draw in people from outside of haskell. You seem to have interpreted this as an insult, it was not. Usage increases with awareness. There was a heavy implication that they market at the expense of engineer. > Unless you are using your RDBMS like a dumb storage system, then persistent doesn't provide the tools to access it. We're not talking advanced stuff here, the most basic fundamentals were done incorrectly: it requires int primary keys on all tables for crying out loud. Obviously multi-column foreign keys just went out the window then too. Of all our apps here, not even the most trivial could be ported to yesod using persistent. Fair enough. We try to stick to the "dumb storage system" model because it gives us a lot of flexibility and makes scaling easier. If you're integrating an existing DB, yeah, it sucks. If starting from scratch, its pretty awesome. But remember, Persistent != Yesod. You'll notice yesod-core doesn't depend on persistent at all. > Certainly. But the major difference between yesod and snap initially appears to be "yesod provides high level DB access and snap doesn't". This may be true of mongo DB (I have no use for it), but for an RDBMS it actually ends up being that neither provides high level DB access, and you have to use something from hackage. [[citation needed]] I think the principle difference is that Yesod plays to Haskell's strengths in being "radically typesafe". The amount of errors we see in compiled Yesod code is shockingly minimal.