|
>Instead of writing code in programing language we move into xml/yaml direction and hundreds of weird config files. Blame this partially on the weird phenomenon of programmers refusing to touch languages they consider aesthetically ugly. Javascript? CSS? Ick. Much better to pile on a build system to compile those languages from another language that looks kind of Ruby. HTML? Ew - no significant whitespace. Let's generate HTML from something that looks and acts like Python. But, snark aside, I think it's a good thing if a framework can be agnostic about the kind of configuration syntax it uses, although that in and of itself implies some minimal complexity. Whatever choices the developers make about this, of course, amount to personal preference. Heck, I prefer INI files for configuration. >Even small website often requires hundreds of megabytes of dependencies That depends on the language and framework you're using. And how small you consider a "small" website. Unfortunately (in my opinion, with which I know others will disagree) frameworks tend to want to do too much, and as such tend to bloat into vast, overly complex attempts at reinventing the wheel, the chassis, the transmission, the bumpers and deciding what kind of air freshener you should want hanging from the mirror. I would prefer a framework not have a templating library or ORM or code generators baked in at all. Those should be implementation specific decisions. Rather, a framework should manage dependencies, routing, global config, responses, have some hooks to allow extensibility - the basics. If I want more, I can pick libraries for that. |