4 ms·

"Our idea was to build a bare minimum boilerplate Node.js server that scales; we did not want to bloat the application by introducing a framework. The first fou

"Our idea was to build a bare minimum boilerplate Node.js server that scales; we did not want to bloat the application by introducing a framework. The first four node modules we added as dependencies were express, cluster, request, and async." I'm curious how you're using Express if not as a framework.

MatthewPhillips 13y ago
I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the definition of a framework, but Express is not one. It's a tiny bit more than a router.
- rtfeldman 13y ago
  The first four words on the Express website are, in large point font, "express web application framework for node".
  - mayank 13y ago
    That doesn't really change what MatthewPhillips said. "Framework" can mean everything from Rails to startup.sh that boots up your node process. Express really doesn't do much, and is closer to middleware than a full framework.
  - hullo 13y ago
    Not to stop there, it's in the page title too, so anyone coming in from Google (for example) is basically required to click on the phrase "web application framework" and acknowledge that the creators, at least, think that it's a framework.
    - sendob 13y ago
      I wonder if they looked at: http://mcavage.github.io/node-restify/ http://mcavage.github.io/node-restify/ Both self describe as frameworks. in a quick blurb on express v restify: "I get asked this more than anything else, so I'll just get it out of the way up front. Express' use case is targeted at browser applications and contains a lot of functionality, such as templating and rendering, to support that. Restify does not." FWIW I am a backend guy and have enjoyed prototyping and working with restify a great deal ( dtrace ftw :) ), just a user and YMMV of course.
rpicard 13y ago
The quote (at least now) is: "we did not want to bloat the application by introducing a proprietary framework." I think they may have meant that they didn't want to write their own.

MatthewPhillips 13y ago

I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the definition of a framework, but Express is not one. It's a tiny bit more than a router.

rtfeldman 13y ago
The first four words on the Express website are, in large point font, "express web application framework for node".
- mayank 13y ago
  That doesn't really change what MatthewPhillips said. "Framework" can mean everything from Rails to startup.sh that boots up your node process. Express really doesn't do much, and is closer to middleware than a full framework.
- hullo 13y ago
  Not to stop there, it's in the page title too, so anyone coming in from Google (for example) is basically required to click on the phrase "web application framework" and acknowledge that the creators, at least, think that it's a framework.
  - sendob 13y ago
    I wonder if they looked at: http://mcavage.github.io/node-restify/ http://mcavage.github.io/node-restify/ Both self describe as frameworks. in a quick blurb on express v restify: "I get asked this more than anything else, so I'll just get it out of the way up front. Express' use case is targeted at browser applications and contains a lot of functionality, such as templating and rendering, to support that. Restify does not." FWIW I am a backend guy and have enjoyed prototyping and working with restify a great deal ( dtrace ftw :) ), just a user and YMMV of course.

rpicard 13y ago

The quote (at least now) is: "we did not want to bloat the application by introducing a proprietary framework." I think they may have meant that they didn't want to write their own.