But to the parent comment, yes, I agree, this is a middleware.
In that sense, the author might be implying that "web framework" may soon be a thing relegated to history
Data is always the important part of any real program.
The same applies to sessions, i18n, or any frontend. They're all either path'd imports or distinct packages.
L(° O °L)
Maybe for colocating a legacy application with a new application that's slowly strangling it [0], but for a new application, this seems antithethical to using a framework in the first place. I can't say for sure why you liked Laravel, but I like Laravel/Rails/et.al. because I don't have to make decisions about the parts of the application that aren't unique to what I'm building.
This just allows you to yak shave on a route-by-route basis?
Sort of a PHP-like, folder based web serving tool that executes Javascript. Very quick and fluid.
Some of those things are specific to web applications. Others are not. It's fine for web-specific logic to be tied to all of the shared assumptions of a web framework, but application logic should not be. As the architecture evolves, the application logic may need to be run in other architectural contexts: as a message consumer, inside an orchestration framework, etc.
That's one of the most painful things about PHP. Entire businesses get built around business logic in PHP backends, and then when you need to execute that logic in a different architectural context, every line of it has to be rewritten, because it's too much work to extricate it from the context of serving web requests.
If you are designing your framework to contain application logic, then it should look ahead to the possibility of that logic being used in a different architectural context. It should facilitate and encourage writing application logic that is agnostic of the web context. Otherwise you're encouraging people to repeat the mistake of PHP all over again.
I guess I can't blame PHP because it comes down to the devs to enforce decent boundaries, but I think PHP makes it easier than others to do so.
PHP is so much better now, but if you're writing PHP, there's a very good chance you're not working with that new, clean PHP.
One design value of Rails is “Convention over configuration”, or what I sometimes explain as smart defaults over having to decide everything.
I see this is an area this project can help with; thought through folder and naming conventions; wrestling with issues at the seem between common tools. Making doing things the right way way (like database migrations) becomes the easiest way to do it; most of the time.
A bundle of smart conventions and ways of working that cuts down yak shaving and sometimes solves arguments as the project can be; well we thought on this a lot more than most of you and we’ve gone with this approach to stick these together and if you only half care now you can get this done for free for your apps.
I remember we've been going through a security audit, and many of their questions were about ports security and server access -- well, we did not even have SSH access at all, and only 80/443 ports were accessible. It was a breeze.
However, as market has shown, people really do want finer control, SSH root access, and custom ports. Along with many more fine-tuning. For example, GAE autoscaler did not reassign a request that triggered a new instance, waiting for it to start for 20s even though all requests completed within 200ms, so other workers were available, but the request waited for its own instance to wake up.
So I'm skeptical of "seams hidden" approach, as over and over again I needed to tune that one hidden seam.
As astro islands
I didn't get the same "AI wrote this" that you did, but I get a lot of people saying "AI wrote this" to stuff I definitely wrote by hand, all the way.
fron•1h ago
terrablue•59m ago