plug

as well do that in Elixir and actually have a better road to it. Edit: I'd like to add that I find a general lack of tools for dealing with boilerplate in Erlang. It also has a generally outdated functional programming skew in that it doesn't at all facilitate pipelining and this makes it less attractive to make nice abstractions like Plug(0), for example. This is exacerbated by the fact that collections aren't abstracted over, so whenever you end up dealing with them there's lots of sighing and docs checking to see what the argument order was the week they designed that particular module and that particular function in that particular collection module. 0 - https://github.com/elixir-plug/plug

nd other libs built on top of it. > Specifically, how would you compare Phoenix and N2O I have no direct experience with n20, but some of our realtime goals overlap and they have done really great work. We use their filesystem watching lib for our live-reload feature. We don't go to the level of writing html abstractions not the server to push updates over, but it's a really neat idea that I would like to explore doing over Phoenix channels after 1.0 is out. If you see my work on Sync, a gem for realtime rails partials, I explored things around these ideas. > Would you say the perception is correct that Phoenix is going very much into the direction of Ruby on Rails? (Generators, you and Jose are rails contributors, etc.) To be clear, I'm not a Rails contributor, but I have done Ruby/Rails professionally for 6 years or so. It depends what you mean by "direction". Rails set the bar for productivity and onboarding out of the box, so we aim to go this direction in spririt, but we aren't out to match feature to feature. We are also taking a more explicit approach (thanks to FP). I would say our goals for bootstrapping productive apps quickly with fast iteration is where we match Rails, but we are ready to take on the world out of the gate perf wise. Phoenix is also deviating on a the traditional "web framework" notion. Browsers aren't going anywhere, but we should have a framework that can hold persistent connection and broker messages across connected devices; many coming over browsers, but iOS, Andoid, et al as well. That's where the world is heading and where Phoenix aims to excel. So we should be great at the standard server rendered html, form builders, etc, but we're trying to take it to the next level with channels. > ... I haven't run into any blockers to using phoenix just feel like I'm fighting it sometimes.) I can't help if we don't have specific code examples. I always tell people we aim for the common 80% usecase that we all share. Special use-cases will always require deviations from any framework. Since our http stack is "just plugs" you should be able to easily get the best of both worlds with your needs while still using phoenix. Find me on IRC with some gists and we can see about making it work well :)

at feeling of "oh my, I can't make it" one might have when looking at code like this http://svn.openfoundry.org/pugs/src/Pugs/Eval.hs when knowing only about C/Java/PHP/Python/Ruby Anybody knowing Ruby or possibly Python should compare that with this https://github.com/elixir-lang/plug/blob/master/lib/plug/con... So, my take is that if a language designer wants to create a functional language that will lure really many procedural programmers into it, s/he has to design something that looks like C or Java. PureScript is too much like Haskell (plus I hate indentation-sensitiveness, but that's almost only a subjective matter). Time will tell.

defined by the language/runtime and consequently that is one area where Phoenix is considerably different than Rails. * I absolutely hated the view layer in Dynamo (which attempted to be too Rails like and did not fit Elixir). Chris got the lessons learned from that and provided an absolute great view layer for Phoenix, where you have the concept of views (modules) and templates (embedded into those modules). Dispatching to views is done with pattern matching (similar to your example above). There aren't any global helpers and the views are easily testable in isolation. * Plug (https://github.com/elixir-lang/plug) also came out of Dynamo. It has the same goals as Rack (because you can't really diverge from the goals): a specification for web servers and an API for connecting applications. However, implementation wise, it is very different than Rack. Rack applications usually build on top of a middleware stack which receives a request environment, passing through all layers, and then returns a response that once again goes through all layers. This approach is what makes Rack uncomfortable for chunking, connection upgrades and so on. In Plug, the plug stack is one-way, you only get the connection (instead of a request and response) because we assume a response can be sent through the connection at any point during the stack (disclaimer: I am both Rack and Plug committer). The list could go on. :) Our build tool, Mix (http://elixir-lang.org/docs/mix), is inspired on Clojure's lein. The most used database layer, Ecto (https://github.com/elixir-lang/ecto), borrows a lot from LINQ (hard to have an ORM when you don't have objects!). There are even some other smaller examples in Phoenix like the current attempts to remove the singular/plural nouns that we see a lot in Rails and, in my opinion, causes a lot of confusion.