|
|
|
|
|
by fat0wl
4569 days ago
|
|
Thanks but I've seen a lot of similar comparisons and they seem to focus on trivial things :/ For example the portion about "Asynchronicity" is a brief paraphrase like "Play is good in Rails its awful or doesn't exist". Performance isn't even mentioned really. I find that with Rails apps a lot of development effort is put toward optimizing for scaling rather than complex logic, where Play could potentially be stronger. A lot of the comparisons seem to be posted by RoR devs who are looking at Play as a potential new framework for a CRUD app with a very fancy UI. In my mind that's not what it is... I read a few articles about corps using it for big distributed apps with a lot of eventing. So I guess it's a bit of my personal taste but I just don't see "Rails has HAML", for example, as a reason why it's better given that HAML would be pretty trivial to implement in Play if the community wanted it. Full-featured CRUD frameworks vs. enterprise-ready app frameworks are very different ideals. They each have their place but if one tech were to emerge as really superior I think it could easily integrate all the bells & whistles that rapid CRUD devs like. |
|
Do you know of any frameworks that are good for that (but let you easily reach down for complex logic, e.g. where data processing or AI is needed)?
Every project I do needs some form of CRUD, and making it work AND be pleasing to interact with takes a lot of time. I don't mind the language, just someone, somewhere must have solved this already...