Echo – Golang micro web framework
labstack.com
labstack.com
Django is the only reason I stick with python today for anything that will have more than five pages. I want form handling, security features such as XSS, CSRF baked in, debug tools such as debug-toolbar and I want to have a basic login feature done for me.
Admin would be a plus but is not required.
Someone needs to write a good rails/django clone for go.
You don't have to (re)write everything in Go, you know.
So if my language of choice is Go, you can somehow guarantee that I won't need a fat framework? How?
It seems like you are trying to fit everything onto this one choice. This is never a good choice. One should chose technology or stack correcponding to the porblem needed to be solved. Not vice versa.
If you need a tool such as Django - you should use one and use Go (both here are for sake of example) for some small tasks, where it can give the most.
Building a new "fat" framework just because you like the langauge is kind of strange approach.
Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's.
Sometimes a fat framework is needed.. period. And if you need a fat framework it doesn't mean that you should switch to Ruby or Python, because in your opinion these are languages for building fat frameworks.
BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument.
In my opinion one should use appropriate tools when building a solution. Using a number of languages or tools that are appropriate for the task is not only normal, but actually gives you better results anytime of the day, not to mention freedom of choice, compared to when you are stuck with "one big thing"
>Who said building a fat framework since I liked the language? That's your words no one else's.
>Sometimes a fat framework is needed
Okay, so name some of the reasons, otherwise mine assumption is only logical. I, personally, can't see any reasons why would you need a fat framework that has to be written in Go and not in Python/Ruby/Java or something else. Seriously, why?
>BTW: python programmer for more than a decade. I've been in need for both micro and fat framework in my career. I still don't get your argument.
My argument is that if you need a fat framework - this does not mean it has to be in some specific language. You have something like a counter argument? Please share.
I can't fathom how you can't think of counter arguments.
- Because a company invested in Go?
- Because they wouldn't want to have to maintain a lot of different technologies/languages, unless it's really necessary?
- Because a fat framework in Go is going to be lighter than a fat framework in python/ruby? (memory reqs, cpu, servers, etc)
- Because Go is easier to reason with/maintain in large codebases?
And still, right now I'd choose python, but I can't understand how someone would hold such strong opinions in such matters. Maybe I've seen too little in my career? Or have I seen too much, so as to not jump in such strong positions so easily? Genuinely curious and that's why I started this thread.
I hardly can imagine a company that had invested only in Go and will need fat Go gramework. Seriously.
>Because they wouldn't want to have to maintain a lot of different technologies/languages, unless it's really necessary?
Not a lot of, but a number - once again, pretty hard to imagine something serious going on here. And startups will hardly chose Go as their starting point for obvious reasons.
>Because a fat framework in Go is going to be lighter than a fat framework in python/ruby? (memory reqs, cpu, servers, etc)
Absolutely not necessary. You can build framework in C and had results that will make you sad compared to that of Python. But even if it is - most likely it will be more expensive and you will have to make a choice. But okay, let's say it has some point.
>Because Go is easier to reason with/maintain in large codebases?
How so? In comparison to Python, for example.
>I can't understand how someone would hold such strong opinions in such matters
Hey, I'm not saying people shouldn't write fat Go framework, or stop doing if they've started already. If stars are lit - it means there is someone who needs it. I just don't get why would you use something like Go for this.
I don't know how to reply to this because I really don't see what's hard to imagine, but ok.
> And startups will hardly chose Go as their starting point for obvious reasons.
Well that's obviously false, or you haven't been paying attention to HN, or job listings :P
> How so? In comparison to Python, for example.
Static typing. In the case where you'd like to counter that point, I'm sincerely sorry, I'm tired of arguing over that point. I'd prefer if we left it at that and say "we agree to disagree".
> Hey, I'm not saying people shouldn't write fat Go framework, or stop doing if they've started already. If stars are lit - it means there is someone who needs it. I just don't get why would you use something like Go for this.
Fair enough. Sometimes I just like to elicit responses in order to gain new perspective/POV etc.
Cheers
First of all you conflate fat with monolithic, which is not necessarily the case.
I think that Django is a good example of this. It's a batteries-included framework, but its architecture allows you to strip or replace parts of it.
Sometimes it's easier to start from a fat framework and "prune" your way to where you want to go, than instead re-invent the whole universe.
Above all, again, it depends.
I do have to code a bunch of stuff myself as opposed to Django. But if I really wanted to save time, I would just use WordPress.
If so, why do you prefer echo over gin?
Thanks
1) echo is more middleware compatible - it's a PITA to use a lot of "standard" Go middleware (e.g. nosurf) with Gin, but echo has no problems with these.
2) the function signature for handlers always returns an error - so you have func(Context) error rather than func(Context). This feels a bit more like idiomatic Go, and makes it easier to write generic error middleware for your app.
In terms of performance, for all intents and purposes they're about the same in real-world cases (the Go community for some odd reason loves bikeshedding over router benchmarks, but in the real world this is probably the least of your concerns).
I think the bigger problem was that it seemed like a whole bunch of folks wanted to be the one to write "the next big web framework", and they didn't really understand the value and usability of the standard library. Those frameworks are generally not necessary.
Echo is not those frameworks. It's worth a look at the value it provides rather than knee-jerking "no frameworks!".
I'm actually kind of shocked it performs better than gin (which is based on httprouter). Are you using a specialized prefix tree for the routes?
This framework was submitted to HN before:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9296524
In that discussion the author of gin mentions gin has a zero allocation router as well https://github.com/gin-gonic/gin/issues/249
On mobile right now, will look at the gin/echo benchmarks later (especially if the gin benchmarks compare the fasthttp engine of echo)
All echo benches have been commented out, last change about a year ago.
Tests do not use echo's fasthttp engine.
(Submitted title was "Introducing Echo v2 fast and highly customizable with many new features".)