5 ms·
That's fair. If the change is too big or you can't agree on the changes, there's not much to do. It may have still been possible to do a big rework of Martini
by brianbarker 12y ago
That's fair. If the change is too big or you can't agree on the changes, there's not much to do. It may have still been possible to do a big rework of Martini or even just deprecate Martini and move to Gin...idk.
I just hate "yet another xxx in yyy" projects, but I'm not downplaying the work involved.
- manucorporat 12y agohaha, as an old user of Martini, I was researching ways to improve the performance, I didn't find too much to fix without breaking stuff. Since the Golang versioning system is weak... haha obviously the main developer of Martini would not merge it.
- elithrar 12y ago> It may have still been possible to do a big rework of Martini or even just deprecate Martini and move to Gin...idk. But again, this project (Gin) is completely unrelated to Martini. Martini itself is not that old; deprecating it would be pretty poor form given that refactoring your project to work with Gin would be A Big Deal. If the author had forked Martini your argument would have made more sense, but we shouldn't be afraid of building something new just because someone else broke similar ground before.
- brianbarker 12y agoWell, this is a tangent anyway. The main point was "why another go web framework" then he gave a better clarification. As you watch new languages spread, it's amazing how many web frameworks pop up. It's happening to Go and Node. I also inferred that Gin intentionally mimicked the Martini API so as to have a small learning curve and be a potential drop-in replacement. You say deprecating it is poor form, yet this guy just built a "better" version of the framework and says we should switch to it. I don't see how that's any classier than just saying "Martini sucks."