[web-devel] On moving Yesod-specific discussion to a separate list

[Greg Weber]

I have found my Yesod experience equal to other haskell libraries- it is
simple and obvious after you have used it for a while (if you are familiar
with the domain, which in this case is web development, including REST, MVC,
and databases).

I am going to have to disagree with any vague assertion about Yesod being
difficult to understand. I can only assume since you aren't giving any
specific examples that you haven't used Yesod on a project. We know there
are many places Yesod can be improved, but we know that from specific
criticisms from Yesod users (which we welcome).

I also find it very controversial to imply that Snap is less complex because
it has less functionality. That may make the *framework* less complex, but
it makes *applications* more complex if they need the missing functionality.

Again, I think the problem that you are others are encountering is an
assumption that readers know a lot more about Yesod than they possibly could
if they haven't used it. Lets encourage the community to present web-devel
discussions in a little broader light that is easier for everyone to
understand.

Greg Weber

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:22 PM, Chris Smith <cdsmith at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Jun 28, 2011 9:16 AM, "Greg Weber" <greg at gregweber.info> wrote:
> > I would much rather revisit this issue in a month or so than keep this
> > thread alive, but I feel the need to defend the good name of Yesod.
> > Yesod libraries are no more complex than other Haskell libraries.
>
> I'm not sure where we have different definitions in mind; surely it can't
> be controversial that web application containers are far more complex than
> most other libraries.  Just look at the dependencies on any such project.
> I'd call it a fair statement that no one thought the problems of Cabal
> scaling to very large numbers of packages was much of a problem until web
> frameworks started being a big deal.  It also seems rather non-controversial
> to point out that Yesod includes a lot more here than other options; the
> Snap project, for example, happily proclaims itself to work at a level of
> abstraction analogous to servlets, and currently makes no attempt at solving
> persistence, form handling, and such.
>
> In any case, sorry if that sounded like sullying the "good name" of Yesod.
> I didn't even think it was particularly controversial.
>
> > The issue is simply that a Yesod thread assumes you have developed a web
> > application in Yesod. Or if it is about implementation, it may assume you
> have
> > looked at a library's internals. As you said, it isn't about your lack of
> *general* web
> > development knowledge. It is a lack of Yesod *specific* knowledge.
>
> Yes, that's precisely my point.  I can think of very few other domains of
> Haskell programming where having not used a specific library even if you're
> familiar with the kind of problem it solves causes discussion about that
> library to look about as meaningful as ancient heiroglyphics.  OpenGL would
> be one, as well as GHC internals.  I'm having trouble finding other
> examples.
>
> Again, this isn't a dig at Yesod... I don't think *anyone* has found a good
> way to build a web application framework that's both simple and obvious to
> understand and solves the hard problems.  I think it's at least partly
> endemic to the problem domain.
>
> --
> Chris Smith
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/web-devel/attachments/20110628/1ab14ef2/attachment.htm>