What is the best alternative to wai-routes?

Question

Built By the Slant team

Find the best product instantly.

4.7 star rating

Try it now - it's free

score 5 · Answer 1

IHP

Top Pro

Under the hood

Code generators, database schema editors, etc. work with Haskell and SQL files, which can also be edited manually, to get 'under the hood'. See More

Top Con

(Small) Server deployment

I'm a bit unclear on the memory requirements for the server (which becomes less of an issue every following year). See More

Top Pro

Easy for beginners

With the code generators even haskell beginners can easily build CRUD apps. See More

Top Pro

Instant live reloading

Makes for a super smooth development experience. See More

Top Pro

HSX

If you have experience with react, you feel right at home with the HSX view syntax. See More

Specs

License:MIT

Written in:Haskell

Repository:https://github.com/digitallyinduced/ihp

5 0

score 2 · Answer 2

Happstack Lite

Top Pro

Has extensive documentation

There is extensive documentation and tutorials for Happstack and Happstack Lite available for use. Documentation and tutorials help programmers write their code; with so many options, programmers will have an easy time learning the framework. See More

Top Con

Handles exceptions poorly

When an exception occurs on the server, the error gets printed. By seeing an error that makes no sense to the user, his experience is negatively impacted. Having a negative experience can mean a user never visits the site again. See More

Top Pro

Molded through 7+ years of feedback

Happstack has been around for over seven years. During this time developers used the framework and offered feedback to improve it. As a result, it is stable and unlikely to have major changes. Happstack Lite was created from all of this feedback See More

Top Con

Allows bad code by not enforcing logic separation

Happstack allows developers to write code for controllers, routing, and models together. Doing so will dirty the code and make maintenance harder. See More

Top Pro

Shares all of its components on gitHub

Having open source means that developers can customize the framework and offer suggestions and solutions to the code. See More

2 0

score 2 · Answer 3

Apiary

Top Con

Mediocre documentation

Users must rely primarily on the example project and auto-generated API documentation (Haddocks). The author of Apiary is not a native English speaker and openly acknowledges this issue. See More

Top Pro

Automatically generates API documentation

Apiary generates comprehensive HTML documentation based on your API routes. See More

Top Pro

Type-level routes

Apiary provides type modeling, down to URL parameters, ensuring type safety. See More

2 0

score 12 · Answer 4

Servant

Top Pro

Automatic documentation and Haskell/JS query generation

Routes are defined end-to-end with type declarations. This allows your API to be introspective, serving its own documentation and derived query code, via jQuery for Javascript and servant-client for Haskell. See More

Top Con

Complicated internals

Extending Servant's existing functionality can be made difficult by the complexity of its type level machinery. Lucky most use cases are able to avoid this. See More

Top Pro

Excellent documentation

We Haskellers are accustomed to flying completely blind when using many libraries, luckily with Servant this isn’t the case. It features comprehensive tutorials, literate haskell examples for many use cases and great Haddock documentation for everything else. See More

Top Con

Route specifications and implementations are only connected by their position in a large type list

You actually have to count the index of the entry where you changed the specification, and then go and change the entry at the same index in the list of implementation methods. There is no other indication that the two are connected. This along with complex and verbose route definitions, makes it very hard to safely make changes to an API. See More

Top Pro

No Template Haskell

Everything is done within the confines of the existing type system, which helps keep compile times down. See More

Top Con

Route definitions are more verbose and complicated than other options

You are required to define a number of separate complicated types and their implementations which are usually spread out over a number of files. This makes it hard to figure out the API. See More

Top Pro

Nice ecosystem

Fairly large ecosystem of related modules for additional functionality. See More

See All Experiences

12 3

score 1 · Answer 5

Nested-Routes

Top Pro

Embed Attoparsec parsers and regular expressions in a routable url

If you have a data encoding you would like to allow as a path chunk, you can do so by routing with an attoparsec parser or regular expression directly. See More

Top Con

Complicated Types

There is a lot of advanced language extensions in use for the engine - if you have a typo somewhere, the errors are practically impossible to understand. See More

Top Pro

Nesting of Handlers

The ability to give a handler child handlers turns a list of handlers into a tree of handlers - much easier to maintain. See More

Top Pro

Simple and Concise

Routing a RESTful api is very literal in Nested-Routes. See More

1 0

score 49 · Answer 6

Yesod

Top Pro

Offers templating for type-safe, well-formed content

While not required, Yesod offers templating through a Shakespearean family of languages to produce page code. See More

Top Con

Is hard to customize

Learning how Yesod works internally is hard. It is a large framework with complicated components. Finding the appropriate code and understanding how it contributes to the framework is difficult, meaning developers will struggle. See More

Top Pro

Uses type-safe URLs

Ensures that data provided by the URL is type-safe. This means that data in the URL has a definitive type. See More

Top Con

Too much template haskell

You actually want to code in haskell and not some DSL with "magic" hidden under the bonnet. See More

Top Pro

Can be used without knowing much Haskell

While Yesod is written in Haskell, developers can achieve basic functionality without much investment in the language. See More

Specs

License:MIT

Price:free

Written in:Haskell

Repository:https://github.com/yesodweb/yesod

49 11

score 5 · Answer 7

Scotty

Top Pro

Easy to pick up and use

A simple framework cuts development time and costs. To get started, developers only need to understand how to write routing and actions. See More

Top Con

Lacks features due to its small size

Since Scotty is small, it does not contain some features that a complex web application may need. Anything that Scotty can't provide must be either found or written, costing developers. See More

Top Pro

Available on gitHub

Having the source code on gitHub means developers can easily suggest improvements and error reports. They also have a community that can help with any problems that come up. See More

5 2

score 6 · Answer 8

Snap

Top Pro

Provides modules for changeable functionality

Snap provides "snaplets". These are self-contained modules of code that provide additional functionality without muddling the core library. Having these resources saves time when developing code. See More

Top Con

Outdated documentation

The comprehensive Snap documentation is currently outdated (last activity appears to have been 2013), though Snap itself is under active development. Note that this primarily affects tutorials and guides; the API documentation is generated automatically and remains current. See More

6 3