[jhancock]

Excellent write up.

I worked with Rails and Phoenix in their early days and got plenty of value from each. If you're building a traditional web 2 app, look no further...similar to choosing Postgres, start there until you have really good reason to venture off.

Without taking away anything from these frameworks and as someone that spent over 10 years building app frameworks, sometimes it's not what I want.

I'm using Clojure for my current problem space which would stymy me if I tried to use Rails or Phoenix. I spent the past 4 months doing product/domain "shaping". There are no web pages yet..mostly pure server side domain and API calls for data gathering. After this exploration I now have several working subsystems and have figured out the pathway to the mvp which will come together quickly. As a bonus I have a working domain core to leverage for steps after the mvp.

[chamomeal]

It’s funny you mention clojure, cause I when I saw “one-person framework” I instantly thought of Biff.

I haven’t used Biff (clojure web framework, does not sound comparable to rails), but there’s a great episode of The Repl with the dev who created it. It’s one of those interviews that reminds you how fun and creative programming can be

[SatvikBeri]

Episode 48 for anyone else who's interested: https://www.therepl.net/episodes/48/

[graemep]

Had a look at the docs and was immediately put of by a full attack framework where the only built in auth is magic links.

I hope this is not as restrictive as it sounds, and you do not have to jump through hoops to do things differently:

"The starter project comes with code for sending emails with MailerSend. Until you add API keys for MailerSend and Recaptcha (which is used to protect your signin forms from bots), signin links and codes will be printed to the console instead of being emailed."

[jhancock]

Joy was a key reason I chose Clojure.

[begueradj]

I had to google the definition of "stymy".

[fkyoureadthedoc]

I've always seen it spelled stymie, was pretty surprised that stymy is legit and apparently is the American English way of spelling it.

[bruckie]

As an American, I've never seen that spelling, and I can't find much evidence that it's an accepted spelling. I'm curious how you came to that conclusion.

"Stymy" doesn't appear in Merriam-Webster [0] nor the OED [1]. Wiktionary [2] and Dictionary.com [3] do list it as "variant" or "alternative" spellings, but with no indication that it's an American spelling.

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stymy

[1] https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=stymy

[2] https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/stymy

[3] https://www.dictionary.com/browse/stymy

[fkyoureadthedoc]

Reading through the list of Google web search results, collinsdictionary.com said it was American English. I should have put my faith in chatgpt instead of google search.