←back to thread

488 points levkk | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.418s | source

Hi everyone,

I've been "funemployed" for a few months and with all that free time and idle hands I wrote a full web framework (think Rails, not Flask) for Rust.

It's boring old MVC, has its own ORM, templates, background jobs, auth, websockets, migrations and more. If you're keen but don't feel like rewriting your app in a different language, Rwf has a WSGI server to run Django (or Flask) inside Rust [1], letting you migrate to Rust at your own pace without disrupting your website.

I think Rust makes a great prototyping and deploy straight to production language. Now it has yet another framework for y'all to play with.

Cheers!

[1] https://levkk.github.io/rwf/migrating-from-python/

Show context
imiric ◴[] No.41918890[source]
After years of working with web frameworks in Python and Java, and then picking up Go along the way, I've come to appreciate Go's approach much more. That is, with a rich and capable standard library, you really don't need traditional frameworks. Need an HTTP server, router, etc.? Use stdlib. Need templates? Use stdlib. Need an ORM? You don't, but you may want to consider a small 3rd party query builder library of your choice. And so on.

This avoids depending on a complex framework that may or may not exist in a few years, improves security by minimizing the amount of 3rd party dependencies, keeps the learning curve low for any new developers joining the project, and is more flexible and easier to maintain. I don't have experience with Rust, and judging by the comments here, web frameworks might still be useful for it. Which is a shame, since the batteries included stdlib approach is far superior IME.

Anyway, I don't want to shoot down your efforts. Congrats on the launch and good luck!

replies(13): >>41918959 #>>41919110 #>>41919336 #>>41919738 #>>41919823 #>>41920300 #>>41920442 #>>41921397 #>>41922584 #>>41923056 #>>41923336 #>>41924884 #>>41924982 #
metadaemon ◴[] No.41919110[source]
Not needing an ORM made me laugh
replies(2): >>41919353 #>>41920132 #
sunrunner ◴[] No.41919353[source]
Why is that?
replies(2): >>41919390 #>>41927294 #
stickfigure ◴[] No.41919390[source]
Your programming language has objects. Your database has relational tables. By definition, you need to map between the two.

You can write your own or you can use someone else's. Those are the two choices.

replies(7): >>41919421 #>>41919544 #>>41919839 #>>41920270 #>>41920443 #>>41920482 #>>41921770 #
BlarfMcFlarf ◴[] No.41919421[source]
You can map objects to db updates, and map query results to objects. Neither of those objects needs to have a mapping to actual relations, like how ORMs insist on.
replies(2): >>41920405 #>>41920435 #
dragonwriter ◴[] No.41920435[source]
Query results are actual, if transitory, relations.

And db updates are either relations or tuples (and a tuple is a relation with cardinality of 1, so...)

replies(1): >>41920476 #
wtetzner ◴[] No.41920476[source]
You can be pedantic if you like, but this is obviously not what anyone means by "ORM".
replies(1): >>41920490 #
1. dragonwriter ◴[] No.41920490[source]
Its literally the exact things that ORMs map between: query results -> objects and object changes -> database updates.
replies(1): >>41994256 #
2. wtetzner ◴[] No.41994256[source]
No, ORMs abstract away the relational database and present it as if it were some kind of object database. Needing to map query results to structs is just incidental, and is completely missing the point of an ORM.

If copying query results to a list of structs is enough to qualify as an ORM, then the term is so generic as to be entirely useless.