Dropwizard vs Yesod
When comparing Dropwizard vs Yesod, the Slant community recommends Yesod for most people. In the question“What are the best backend web frameworks?” Yesod is ranked 12th while Dropwizard is ranked 28th. The most important reason people chose Yesod is:
While not required, Yesod offers templating through a Shakespearean family of languages to produce page code.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Enhanced productivity and less timewasting
The application can be run and debugged from the IDE without the need to recompile or redeploy the WAR file. This is because a Dropwizard web application creates on main program which starts the jetty container.
Pro Application metrics integrated into the framework
Dropwizard comes with application metrics integrated out of the box. These metrics provide a lot of useful information such as request/response time.
For example, to get the execution time of a method, the @Timed
annotation is used.
Pro Quick project bootstrap
Starting a project with Dropwizard si very easy and bootstraping is quick and painless. All that's needed is a single dependency added in the pom.xml
file and it's ready to go.
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.
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.
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.
Cons
Con Does not allow a lot a freedom of choice
Dropwizard removes a lot of freedom that the developer may have with other frameworks because of the fact that it tries to do everything itself. It chooses the best Java libraries for the job required, without allowing the developer much choice.
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.
Con Too much template haskell
You actually want to code in haskell and not some DSL with "magic" hidden under the bonnet.