I could add something about NodeJS arena: There are web frameworks, but the most popular (AFAIK) way is the use of:
- Express for MVC routing and middleware management (before middle ware management was Connect task), and template engine coordination - NPM ecosystem for any library or middleware needed I guess that "big web frameworks" are more suitable for simple application without a lot of changing requirements. Every time I got an application with non-trivial logic, and agile embracing the change, I preferred the "simple-way" insteof the "easy-way". And "small web frameworks" are in charge of: - middleware chaining - routing a la MVC - coordinate template rendering In contrast, PayPal developed kraken http://krakenjs.com/ adding some conventions and libraries Angel "Java" Lopez @ajlopez On Sun, May 3, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Christopher Small <metasoar...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Perhaps we need to see an example of a minimalistic/modular approach that > _has_ won out. > > Node's express has > 5k commits, 177 contribs, >18k stars. Possibly the > most popular node framework out there. Tagline? > > > Fast, unopinionated, minimalist web framework for node. > > > > > On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 11:52:22 AM UTC-7, Leon Grapenthin wrote: >> >> No, it isn't. And never has this author proven that programmers with >> bipolar personality are programming more LISP then other languages. >> >> Many larger libraries in the Clojure community are well documented and >> "finished-off properly". >> >> Web frameworks have been tried and not been picked up. Users have chosen >> the modular compose it yourself approach. Framework authors have simply >> stopped maintaining what nobody wanted anyway or split them up into smaller >> pieces. >> >> >> On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 8:25:22 PM UTC+2, larry google groups wrote: >>> >>> >>> > The web development industry as reflected in job postings at >>> > Indeed.co.uk is still dominated by the likes of Rails, Django, >>> Laravel, >>> > Zend, Symfony & Spring so I'm not sure how you've concluded that >>> there's >>> > been a 15-year trend towards composition. >>> >>> That is a good point, though I would also point out that, according to >>> Indeed.com, the use of Clojure is also growing. To me, what's important is >>> the growth of the Clojure community, rather than the growth of some >>> sub-community focused on a particular niche. >>> >>> However, I acknowledge you may have a point about the failure of any of >>> the Clojure frameworks to take off. It's possible this is another >>> manifestation of the Bipolar Programmer problem: >>> >>> http://www.lambdassociates.org/blog/bipolar.htm >>> >>> "Brilliance and failure are so often mixed together and our initial >>> reaction is it shouldn't be. But it happens and it happens a lot. Why? >>> ...But brilliance is not enough. You need application too, because the >>> material is harder at university. So pretty soon our man is getting B+, >>> then Bs and then Cs for his assignments. He experiences alternating >>> feelings of failure cutting through his usual self assurance. He can still >>> stay up to 5.00AM and hand in his assignment before the 9.00AM deadline, >>> but what he hands in is not so great. >>> >>> ...So BBMs love Lisp. And the stunning originality of Lisp is >>> reflective of the creativity of the BBM; so we have a long list of ideas >>> that originated with Lispers - garbage collection, list handling, personal >>> computing, windowing and areas in which Lisp people were amongst the >>> earliest pioneers. So we would think, off the cuff, that Lisp should be >>> well established, the premiere programming language because hey - its great >>> and we were the first guys to do this stuff. >>> >>> But it isn't and the reasons why not are not in the language, but in the >>> community itself, which contains not just the strengths but also the >>> weaknesses of the BBM. >>> >>> One of these is the inability to finish things off properly. The phrase >>> 'throw-away design' is absolutely made for the BBM and it comes from the >>> Lisp community. Lisp allows you to just chuck things off so easily, and >>> it is easy to take this for granted. I saw this 10 years ago when looking >>> for a GUI to my Lisp (Garnet had just gone West then). No problem, there >>> were 9 different offerings. The trouble was that none of the 9 were >>> properly documented and none were bug free. Basically each person had >>> implemented his own solution and it worked for him so that was fine. This >>> is a BBM attitude; it works for me and I understand it. It is also the >>> product of not needing or wanting anybody else's help to do something." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 9:51:15 AM UTC-4, g vim wrote: >>>> >>>> On 03/05/2015 14:39, larry google groups wrote: >>>> > The industry has been moving against frameworks for 15 years now. The >>>> > peak of the monolithic framework craze was Struts, back in 2000. >>>> After >>>> > that, people started craving something less bloated. That's why the >>>> > whole industry was so excited when Rails emerged in 2004. Bruce Eckel >>>> > summed up the sudden change of mood in his essay "The departure of >>>> the >>>> > hyper-enthusiasts": >>>> > >>>> > http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=141312 >>>> > >>>> > But after awhile, people began to feel that even Rails was bloated, >>>> > which lead to the emergence of micro-frameworks like Sinatra. >>>> > >>>> > And then, continuing with the trend, we've seen the emergence of >>>> > eco-systems, such as Clojure, that allow the trend to go further: >>>> > Clojure supports such high levels composition that frameworks are no >>>> > longer needed. And this is the direction the industry has been moving >>>> > for the last 15 years. Clojure is simply out in front. Most languages >>>> > don't allow this level of composition. >>>> > >>>> >>>> The web development industry as reflected in job postings at >>>> Indeed.co.uk is still dominated by the likes of Rails, Django, >>>> Laravel, >>>> Zend, Symfony & Spring so I'm not sure how you've concluded that >>>> there's >>>> been a 15-year trend towards composition. Ruby and Python have had >>>> lightweight composable alternatives for many years but Rails and Django >>>> still dominate. I'm not against the composition at all. I just think we >>>> need more structured alternatives that we can at least brand and market >>>> as well as teach to Clojure beginners. >>>> >>>> gvim >>>> >>> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
