[SomeOtherGuy]

I'm not a huge fan of lift, but the portion of it I am ok with (the templates/snippets side of things) is fairly similar to how you use snap. It may be worth it to work on helping to finish snap (or forking it if need be) rather than starting from scratch. Snap currently provides nothing for database access, so you have a blank slate there to copy mapper or record from lift (but those both suck horribly!).

[SkyMarshal]

Interesting, what aspects are you not a fan of (besides the persistence parts)?

[SomeOtherGuy]

The model side of things is certainly my biggest complaint. The other things are minor in comparison, but still annoying. I like the architecture of lift, just not some of the details of the implementation.

I don't like the way templates are forced to use snippets to load data, in particular as it results in snippets being dependent on the database, and thus not suitable for unit testing. The framework should be pulling the data into the view, which then passes it as an argument to the snippet to do whatever transformation on it. That way snippets are entirely self-contained and easy to unit-test. This is the sort of thing that I think would have ended up the way I want had it been written in haskell instead of scala just because writing small, self-contained functions is the typical haskell way of doing things.

I hate the very opinionated nature of the form handling, and the even more opinionated responses from the developers to questions like "how can I make a form that works normally and doesn't require a session". People are not bad for wanting forms to behave normally, and the "security" show the lift devs put on to justify the form handling in lift is insulting.

While I find templates acceptable, they are seriously missing out on type safety. I should get a compiler error if I create a template with invalid html. Ocsigen got this part very right (an ocaml framework/appserver). Not only do I not get this benefit for my markup, but lift itself generates invalid html on me when using virtually any of the included form generation methods. Very annoying.

Ideally what I want is a framework that gives me the type safety of yesod, but with the structure of lift. I hate faux-mvc web frameworks and find they make things more difficult rather than making things easier, and unfortunately yesod copies the typical rails clone structure. Lift doesn't make the mistake of trying to hide http from me, and gives me the simple and correct mapping of template to url, leaves the domain model in the model instead of cramming it into "controllers" that shouldn't be involved.

[SkyMarshal]

Thanks. Those haven't bothered me too much yet, but good to have on the radar. That's the first real critique of Lift I've seen, other than 'it's not MVC'.

As for Yesod, I was also thinking it would be nice to have the type safety and parallel/concurrent performance of Yesod with the templating and structure of Lift. Don't know Yesod well enough yet though. Too many side projects.