Just one comment (in a few parts). On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 17:47 +0300, Michael Snoyman wrote:
I would say that Yesod and Snap are very orthogonal projects. Without offense to the Snap authors, I don't really think Snap is a framework; it's much more low-level than that.
That seems to be overstating the case a bit. Snap is designed to write applications directly on top of it, and in that sense acts as a framework. Some of the difference you're seeing likely comes down to preference about how heavy the "framework" ought to be.
* Yesod has type-safe URLs, I don't believe Snap has any similar feature. However, as I mentioned already, Snap is lower level than Yesod, so you could easily implement type-safe URLs on top of Snap.
Snap does provide a form of routing requests, and even of parsing data from the contents of the URL. It looks to be based on combinators similar to what Happstack does, with the exception that capturing variables from URLs is done in a relatively braindead way by adding special syntax with colons inside strings. The point here is, Snap does something different; not necessarily something worse. We all have our preferences. Treating Snap as a new underlying server implementation on top of which to layer WAI and Yesod is possible, but rather missing the point. Much of what I get from Snap is that we can dispense with some of the unnecessary complexity and just solve problems. Then again, I've also built three or four significant internally used web applications with Happstack, and have yet to use happstack-state for anything but working through tutorials. Could be I'm just afraid of change... -- Chris Smith