Michael Snoyman
I think you read my e-mail a little too harshly. Let me rephrase:
* The feature set Snap has right now does not qualify it as a framework *in my mind*. If someone asks to compare the features of Snap and Yesod, there's not much to say. I'm well aware of the subjectivity of the term framework, I'm merely saying that by the criteria I know, and which I think most people are used to, Snap does not provide the features of a framework.
* I'm well aware of Snap's routing abilities, but it still does not support type-safe URLs. You may not want type-safe URLs, that's fine. But I can't compare Yesod's implementation of them versus Snap's, simply because the latter is absent.
If you see Snap as a great way to write applications without complications, go for it, I think that's great. For people that want features that Yesod provides, I think it will be nice to have a fast server to run on top of.
Yes, exactly, I agree with all of the above. We have plans for providing
more sophisticated "framework" capabilities in the future, but right now
we are concentrating on having a stable, well-tested, and
high-performance low-level HTTP server and application interface.
Where we can find common ground (like Yesod using Snap as a low-level
server, or us maybe adapting some code for multipart form data from
Yesod), the code will cross-pollinate, and where things are too
different (because of different design goals/concerns) we will provide
users with alternatives. "A rising tide lifts all boats" etc.
G
--
Gregory Collins