I have to wonder why Guile hasn’t become more popular over the years, frameworks or not. It ships with so many distributions that the ease of access is there, but I’ve yet to come across any significant code base using it for web apps.
But the following might be easier syntax extension in Scheme, in which each variable URL path element can be mapped for the programmer directly to a Scheme variable binding in the closure:
Maybe you can answer one thing that pickled my mind, no mention of CSRF protections,etc in the documentation that seems to cover quite a few bases. (apart from one xss symbol application that I couldn't fully decipher).
And was a gag in the ancient Dick van Dyke show, where Dick's character gets a painting signed by `Artanis', and thinks it worthless, until someone spells it backward.
Beautiful and clean website (loads well without JS and fonts); not sure why some people are reacting negatively to some poetry... I swear, HN crowd can be often worse than Mean Girls.
About Artanis itself... It looks really cool! Scheme is such a nice language to code and hack with; but, how safe would it be to expose it directly?
I see they are dogfooding on the Guix packages website, so... I'm guessing it's pretty well tested.
> Scheme is such a nice language to code and hack with; but, how safe would it be to expose it directly?
If you have really good Scheme programmers, who know their system, and built it competently, it's probably safer to expose that than your average conventional system.
(Example: A system in Scheme was the first to get a particular certification for sensitive data hosting on cloud servers. Partly because the very small team that developed it knew the stack inside and out, and could do whatever needed to be done, in a smart way.)
(Meanwhile, say, a consulting firm-led team who got a contract for a comparably complex system, and billed for 10 or 100 times the seat-warmers, with huge and ridiculously complex stacks they didn't understand... would just flounder, focus on appearances in sprint tasks, and churn out things implemented in poor ways, and with a large number of vulnerabilities, and probably take a lot longer before they could deliver a system that would survive the first day of use.)
In my experience this sentiment could be applied to anything. It's more about getting paid for "getting thing done" versus "working on thing".
I have particular personal experience with an app that could be done within several months with handful of people but was developed over several years by team of 50. I was flabbergasted at first but you need to understand politics first.
I can't fail to remember a joke about a law firm where the son of the most senior partner graduates from an ivy league university, joins the firm, and on the first day says he single-handedly sorted out one long-standing case. His father is angry: "You have just put an end to the case which was feeding us for last three years!"
Facing an avalanche of troubling, attention-grabbing, manipulative, and often misleading information, people protect their sanity by irony and nonchalance. A genuine expression, which does not employ irony and invites the reader to also cast away the shield of cynicism, feels both like an attack and the pull of something desirable but unattainable. The resulting pain, modulated by the protective irony, is expressed as cringe.
That's a great thing. Sites which restrict text to a narrow column are a horrible reading experience. I have a large monitor and I wish to use a large monitor!
I so appreciate the website. So easy to read makes it appealing to try the framework, especially taking into account the most recent experience writing on Scheme was back in college 15 years ago.
I have to wonder why Guile hasn’t become more popular over the years, frameworks or not. It ships with so many distributions that the ease of access is there, but I’ve yet to come across any significant code base using it for web apps.
Just a comment on APIs in Scheme...
If you're defining a Web server route handler, it's reasonable to do it as you would in most languages, like this package's example:
But the following might be easier syntax extension in Scheme, in which each variable URL path element can be mapped for the programmer directly to a Scheme variable binding in the closure: (Of course, you'd also have a function to sanitize/escape `who` before injecting it into the HTML.)Guile's builtin server is similar:
I've used this in production once.
Mostly able to because Guile's web server is standard, and if you need to bypass the framework, you can rather easily.
It's more than fast enough for most people's needs. Flexible, because Scheme, and Artanis' design will be familiar to all the Flask/etc devs.
Maybe you can answer one thing that pickled my mind, no mention of CSRF protections,etc in the documentation that seems to cover quite a few bases. (apart from one xss symbol application that I couldn't fully decipher).
Is this named after the Protoss Executor Artanis?
> Has a Sinatra-like style route, hence the name "Artanis" ;-)
My first thought as well. State your will!
"Artanis" backwards is "Sinatra" which happens to be the name of a popular Ruby gem for web dev.
And was a gag in the ancient Dick van Dyke show, where Dick's character gets a painting signed by `Artanis', and thinks it worthless, until someone spells it backward.
Beautiful and clean website (loads well without JS and fonts); not sure why some people are reacting negatively to some poetry... I swear, HN crowd can be often worse than Mean Girls.
About Artanis itself... It looks really cool! Scheme is such a nice language to code and hack with; but, how safe would it be to expose it directly?
I see they are dogfooding on the Guix packages website, so... I'm guessing it's pretty well tested.
> Scheme is such a nice language to code and hack with; but, how safe would it be to expose it directly?
If you have really good Scheme programmers, who know their system, and built it competently, it's probably safer to expose that than your average conventional system.
(Example: A system in Scheme was the first to get a particular certification for sensitive data hosting on cloud servers. Partly because the very small team that developed it knew the stack inside and out, and could do whatever needed to be done, in a smart way.)
(Meanwhile, say, a consulting firm-led team who got a contract for a comparably complex system, and billed for 10 or 100 times the seat-warmers, with huge and ridiculously complex stacks they didn't understand... would just flounder, focus on appearances in sprint tasks, and churn out things implemented in poor ways, and with a large number of vulnerabilities, and probably take a lot longer before they could deliver a system that would survive the first day of use.)
In my experience this sentiment could be applied to anything. It's more about getting paid for "getting thing done" versus "working on thing".
I have particular personal experience with an app that could be done within several months with handful of people but was developed over several years by team of 50. I was flabbergasted at first but you need to understand politics first.
I can't fail to remember a joke about a law firm where the son of the most senior partner graduates from an ivy league university, joins the firm, and on the first day says he single-handedly sorted out one long-standing case. His father is angry: "You have just put an end to the case which was feeding us for last three years!"
> A system in Scheme was the first to get a particular certification for sensitive data hosting on cloud servers.
What system was this?
> not sure why some people are reacting negatively to some poetry...
It's a weird time for art. A lot of people's immediate reaction to genuine expression these days is "cringe".
I suppose that's always been the case to some degree, but it feels more prevalent now with internet-level attention span and broadcasting breadth.
Facing an avalanche of troubling, attention-grabbing, manipulative, and often misleading information, people protect their sanity by irony and nonchalance. A genuine expression, which does not employ irony and invites the reader to also cast away the shield of cynicism, feels both like an attack and the pull of something desirable but unattainable. The resulting pain, modulated by the protective irony, is expressed as cringe.
- The text is unusually large.
- Irrelevant noise at the beginning of the landing page.
- "What is it" is under the FAQ section, which has a heading that is the same size as the parent heading.
- It consumes all horizontal space.
- The text is of adequate size
- At least there are no images of fake people
- It's in an <h1> on top of the page
- `max-width: 60em` is absolutely reasonable
The very first text on the page tells you what it is: “ GNU Artanis - A fast web application framework for Scheme”
I can finally read a website without squinting despite having glasses on already. Yay!
As a newly old, I really appreciate websites with large text.
> It consumes all horizontal space.
That's a great thing. Sites which restrict text to a narrow column are a horrible reading experience. I have a large monitor and I wish to use a large monitor!
Unlimited line length results in poor readability, and is a UX failure on large monitors. Limiting the number of characters per line makes the text easier to read. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234578707_Optimal_L...
The page has a `max-width: 60em` on the main div.
I so appreciate the website. So easy to read makes it appealing to try the framework, especially taking into account the most recent experience writing on Scheme was back in college 15 years ago.
Projects using it is 404.
the link at the bottom is wrong. the one at the top works: https://artanis.dev/projects.html
Disappointed they didn’t use hiccup to generate html. Format?