5 ms·

Isn't "minimalist framework" a contradiction? It seems like if you were going for minimalism you would not use a framework.

krapp 13y ago
Not necessarily. It's minimalism in terms of a framework (though in more objective terms I guess you would be right.) To me that means having not much more than a url router and a way to do MVC - no asset management, no HTML helpers, no ORM, no default templating language. I'm surprised Slim Framework isn't listed under PHP though, is that not considered minimalist?
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  > no HTML helpers, [...] no default templating language Flask has HTML helpers and uses Jinja2 as its template language, though...
  - krapp 13y ago
    Hm... well maybe my definition of 'minimal' is a bit more minimal than the norm then.
  - ssijak 13y ago
    But you can pip install any other templating language and use it in flask. jinja is just the default.
huckyaus 13y ago
I read 'minimalist framework' as being a framework that is minimalist, as opposed to a framework for people that are building minimalist software.
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
I agree. Having just finished a project with Flask, I ended up using no less than 8 million dependencies that I'd never heard of. "BYO everything" frameworks would be more appropriate, but even then, Flask brings with it an entire basement of sub-frameworks that I would argue make it so that you might as well just use a full-fledged framework like Django.
- thinkpad20 13y ago
  We use Flask for most things at my work; while it can have many dependencies, you usually don't need that many. Of course, you'll bring some in for certain tasks that your app needs to do, but especially for little doodads that just need to present a RESTful interface to some service, this usually isn't that many (or if there are many, they'll mostly have to do with the service, and not the app). Of course I don't know the details of your project. Either way, the advantage of a minimal framework like that is having the ability to easily install just what you need, so obviously that advantage is going to be less and less the more it is that you require it to do.
- mercurial 13y ago
  That's how it works with micro-frameworks, you pay for what you use. Now, it's not necessarily a problem, last time I checked, there was a decent list of functional Flask components. What do you feel is the advantage of having a huge 'contrib' folder, as long as the extensions are maintained? Because the advantage of not having an ORM bundled per default, and easily switching something like the templating language are pretty clear to me.
  - jsmeaton 13y ago
    I have a django project that swapped out the django templates for mako. Mako templates are awesome to use. The problem is it becomes extremely difficult to use packages that have bundled templates of their own. I would think it'd be the same with flask, no? Making assumptions about the available ORM and templating package allows 3rd party modules to do more of the work for you.
    - collyw 13y ago
      I have been tempted to switch the Django ORM for SQL alchemy, but I would loose the Django Amdin interface.
      - jsmeaton 13y ago
        ..and every 3rd party module that contains their own models, which would be a very large number. If you want to use SQL Alchemy, you're better off using a different framework. I'm currently trying to decide if this is the angle I should follow for my next project, which requires fairly sophisticated SQL (comparable to the django ORM anyway).
SkyMarshal 13y ago
Not using a framework requires creating your own and just not calling it a framework. One way or another you're using a framework, it's just a matter of whether your framework is grid-only, like Skeleton, Suzy, etc, or includes a ton of additional bells and whistles like Bootstrap and Foundation.
ljoshua 13y ago
I think in many cases a good minimalist framework will get a core set of functions out of the way (in web for example: routing, autoloading, dependency injection, etc.). Grabbing something small that provides a proven but efficient backbone can let you focus on delivering core value, but then can easily be switched out later as the solution grows.
- gfish3000 13y ago
  One would think that you wouldn't want to switch out a framework later. After all, your choice of network is one of the defining factors of how everything will work. Swapping it out means rewriting most, if not all, of your CRUD functionality and then doing a whole lot of regression testing. Doesn't seem very cost or time-effective.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    Regression testing is inevitable, but with a minimal framework, you'll essentially end up rewriting the controllers, and part of the views. If you switch templating systems, modifying the views can't be helped. And the controllers should only be a glue between your view and the service layer, so it ought to be solely administrative code.
baddox 13y ago
But there must be a smallest framework, right? I would call the x% smallest frameworks "minimalist."
downboy 13y ago
It's intention refers more to an easy-to-use, low overhead and already-written solution, because people either don't understand or don't want to invest the time anymore.
alan_cx 13y ago
As far a web stuff is concerned, I wouldn't call anything other than pure HTML minimalist. Maybe I'd suggest a table is a minimalist framework. But judging by the other comments, Im the weirdo. Which is fair enough.

krapp 13y ago

Not necessarily. It's minimalism in terms of a framework (though in more objective terms I guess you would be right.) To me that means having not much more than a url router and a way to do MVC - no asset management, no HTML helpers, no ORM, no default templating language. I'm surprised Slim Framework isn't listed under PHP though, is that not considered minimalist?

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
> no HTML helpers, [...] no default templating language Flask has HTML helpers and uses Jinja2 as its template language, though...
- krapp 13y ago
  Hm... well maybe my definition of 'minimal' is a bit more minimal than the norm then.
- ssijak 13y ago
  But you can pip install any other templating language and use it in flask. jinja is just the default.

huckyaus 13y ago

I read 'minimalist framework' as being a framework that is minimalist, as opposed to a framework for people that are building minimalist software.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

I agree. Having just finished a project with Flask, I ended up using no less than 8 million dependencies that I'd never heard of. "BYO everything" frameworks would be more appropriate, but even then, Flask brings with it an entire basement of sub-frameworks that I would argue make it so that you might as well just use a full-fledged framework like Django.

thinkpad20 13y ago
We use Flask for most things at my work; while it can have many dependencies, you usually don't need that many. Of course, you'll bring some in for certain tasks that your app needs to do, but especially for little doodads that just need to present a RESTful interface to some service, this usually isn't that many (or if there are many, they'll mostly have to do with the service, and not the app). Of course I don't know the details of your project. Either way, the advantage of a minimal framework like that is having the ability to easily install just what you need, so obviously that advantage is going to be less and less the more it is that you require it to do.
mercurial 13y ago
That's how it works with micro-frameworks, you pay for what you use. Now, it's not necessarily a problem, last time I checked, there was a decent list of functional Flask components. What do you feel is the advantage of having a huge 'contrib' folder, as long as the extensions are maintained? Because the advantage of not having an ORM bundled per default, and easily switching something like the templating language are pretty clear to me.
- jsmeaton 13y ago
  I have a django project that swapped out the django templates for mako. Mako templates are awesome to use. The problem is it becomes extremely difficult to use packages that have bundled templates of their own. I would think it'd be the same with flask, no? Making assumptions about the available ORM and templating package allows 3rd party modules to do more of the work for you.
  - collyw 13y ago
    I have been tempted to switch the Django ORM for SQL alchemy, but I would loose the Django Amdin interface.
    - jsmeaton 13y ago
      ..and every 3rd party module that contains their own models, which would be a very large number. If you want to use SQL Alchemy, you're better off using a different framework. I'm currently trying to decide if this is the angle I should follow for my next project, which requires fairly sophisticated SQL (comparable to the django ORM anyway).

SkyMarshal 13y ago

Not using a framework requires creating your own and just not calling it a framework. One way or another you're using a framework, it's just a matter of whether your framework is grid-only, like Skeleton, Suzy, etc, or includes a ton of additional bells and whistles like Bootstrap and Foundation.

ljoshua 13y ago

I think in many cases a good minimalist framework will get a core set of functions out of the way (in web for example: routing, autoloading, dependency injection, etc.). Grabbing something small that provides a proven but efficient backbone can let you focus on delivering core value, but then can easily be switched out later as the solution grows.

gfish3000 13y ago
One would think that you wouldn't want to switch out a framework later. After all, your choice of network is one of the defining factors of how everything will work. Swapping it out means rewriting most, if not all, of your CRUD functionality and then doing a whole lot of regression testing. Doesn't seem very cost or time-effective.
- mercurial 13y ago
  Regression testing is inevitable, but with a minimal framework, you'll essentially end up rewriting the controllers, and part of the views. If you switch templating systems, modifying the views can't be helped. And the controllers should only be a glue between your view and the service layer, so it ought to be solely administrative code.

baddox 13y ago

But there must be a smallest framework, right? I would call the x% smallest frameworks "minimalist."

downboy 13y ago

It's intention refers more to an easy-to-use, low overhead and already-written solution, because people either don't understand or don't want to invest the time anymore.

alan_cx 13y ago

As far a web stuff is concerned, I wouldn't call anything other than pure HTML minimalist. Maybe I'd suggest a table is a minimalist framework. But judging by the other comments, Im the weirdo. Which is fair enough.