On Jan 3, 12:57 pm, Andrew Boekhoff wrote:
> > > As for the OO vs functional . . . a web server is a function from a
> > > request to a response. How is that functional view any less natural
> > > than an OO view?
>
> > I think someone steeped in the controller/action viewpoint (a la
> > Rails)
> > As for the OO vs functional . . . a web server is a function from a
> > request to a response. How is that functional view any less natural
> > than an OO view?
>
> I think someone steeped in the controller/action viewpoint (a la
> Rails) would disagree: they see requests as being parameteriz
> Enlive is about as clean as you could ask for in this respect,
> though, even cleaner than Lift, so I don't think this is inherently a
> language issue.
Aye. XML literals aren't really a substitute for templates IMO.
> As for the OO vs functional . . . a web server is a function from a
> reques
On Jan 2, 11:50 am, Mike Meyer wrote:
> There are definitely some good ideas there - and I agree with most of
> the goals. But Lift, like most other page-centric web frameworks,
> seems to break one of the fundamental rules of good API design: Simple
> things should be simple.
Having implemented
The closest thing to Lift in Clojure right now is probably Conjure:
http://github.com/macourtney/Conjure
Tutorial on Conjure:
http://wiki.github.com/macourtney/Conjure/hello-world-tutorial
It's closer to Rails than Lift. I've looked at Lift and didn't see
much advantage of it over a Rails like f
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 07:01:20 -0800 (PST)
ngocdaothanh wrote:
> Scala has Lift with many advanced features:
> http://blog.lostlake.org/index.php?/archives/16-Web-Framework-Manifesto.html
> http://blog.lostlake.org/index.php?/archives/25-Why-the-world-needs-another-web-framework.html
There are defi
