create-react-app-zero VS sanic

https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

No build frontend dev is a thing, although obscure.

Preact has a no build path in their documentation: https://preactjs.com/guide/v10/getting-started/#no-build-too...

And here’s my no build react setup: https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

Not really the thing you’re looking for, but for those looking for a toolless approach static web apps are a possibility. Host a folder on github pages, put an index.html file in there, start coding.

Plugging my own repo: https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

It is a version of create react app that works in that way, no build tools needed, only a static web server for local development.

For example, I made a version of create react app that requires zero build tools and IMHO doesn't concede too much in developer experience. To be fair, I am not using this myself professionally, but as a proof of concept I think it's pretty interesting to see what's possible. https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

I have been in professional web development since 2004 and I mostly agree with the author that there are massive amounts of groupthink going on. "Modern" web development has standardized in tool stacks which are insanely complicated, far beyond anything that is warranted in most cases. We have forgotten how to make simple things in simple ways.

At a minimum you need node, npm, webpack, babel, an spa framework, a frontend router, a css transpiler, a css framework, a test runner, a testing functions library, and a bunch of smaller things, and that's just what is "needed" to build a static website with a bit of interaction. We're not even talking about the dockerized insanity that happens as soon as you want to slide an API under that beast.

I understand why every piece is there, I was there when they arrived on the scene, I understand what problem they solve. What I don't understand is why as a group web developers have decided this is the only way to solve the problem of web development. What we don't have are simpler web stacks. Why do we need npm or babel at all to make a simple web frontend? Modern browsers are good enough that with the right tooling we don't need build pipelines or package managers. Similar arguments can be made for the server-side parts.

Anyway, here's my own two cents to a simpler web dev stack: a version of create react app that is entirely self-contained and has no build steps. https://github.com/jsebrech/create-react-app-zero

My app fits into multiple categories 1) Since you can search for stages with Atlas Search 2) The entire app is real-time 3) The backend was built with Python and Sanic ASGI framework.

Sanic is very very popular with 16.6k stars, 1.5k forks, opencollective sponsors and a very active github. Falcon is more popular than japronto with 8.9k stars, 898 forks, opencollective sponsors and a very active github too. Despite Japronto been keeped as first place by TechEmPower, Falcon is a way better solution in general with performance similar to fastify an very fast node.js framework that hits 575k requests per second in this benchmark.

> trying to build a lifeboat for Twitter, Python works, but then modules require builds that break.

> Alternatively, any good resources for the above?

There are many, _unbelievably many_ writeups and tools for Python building and packaging. Some of them are really neat! But paralysis of choice is real. So is the reality that many of the new/fully integrated/cutting edge tools, however superior they may be, just won't get long term support to catch on and stay relevant.

When getting started with Python, I very personally like to choose from a few simple options (others are likely to pipe up with their own, and that's great; mine aren't The One Right Way, just some fairly cold/mainstream takes).

1. First pick what stack you'll be using to develop and test software. In Python this is sadly often going to be different from the stack you'll use to deploy/run it in production, but here we are. There are two sub-choices to be made here:

1.a. How will you be running the _python interpreter_ in dev/test? "I just want to use the Python that came with my laptop" is fine to a point, but breaks down a lot sooner than folks expect (again, the reasons for this are variously reasonable and stupid, but here we are). Personally, I like pyenv (https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv) here. It's a simple tool that builds interpreters on your system and provides shell aliases to adjust pathing so they can optionally be used. At the opposite extreme from pyenv, some folks choose Python-in-Docker here (pros: reproducible, makes deployment environments very consistent with dev; cons: IDE/quick build-and-run automations get tricker). There are some other tools that wrap/automate the same stuff that pyenv does.

1.b. How will you be isolating your project's dependencies? "I want to install dependencies globally" breaks down (or worse, breaks your laptop!) pretty quickly, yes it's a bummer. There are three options here: if you really eschew automations/wrappers/thick tools in general, you can do this yourself (i.e. via "pip install --local", optionally in a dedicated development workstation user account); you can use venv (https://docs.python.org/3/library/venv.html stdlib version of virtualenv, yes the names suck and confusing, here we are etc. etc.), which is widely standardized upon and manually use "pip install" while inside your virtualenv, and you can optionally integrate your virtualenv with pyenv so "inside your virtualenv" is easy to achieve via pyenv-virtualenv (https://github.com/pyenv/pyenv-virtualenv); or you can say "hell with this, I want maximum convenience via a wrapper that manages my whole project" and use Poetry (https://python-poetry.org/). There's no right point on that spectrum, it's up to you to decide where you fall on the "I want an integrated experience and to start prototyping quickly" versus "I want to reduce customizations/wrappers/tooling layers" spectrum.

2. Then, pick how you'll be developing said software: what frameworks or tools you'll be using. A Twitter lifeboat sounds like a webapp, so you'll likely want a web framework. Python has a spectrum of those of varying "thickness"/batteries-included-ness. At the minimum of thickness are tools like Flask (https://flask.palletsprojects.com/en/2.2.x/) and Sanic (like Flask, but with a bias towards performance at the cost of using async and some newer Python programming techniques which tend, in Python, to be harder than the traditional Flask approach: https://sanic.dev). At the maximum of thickness are things like Django/Pyramid. With the minimally-thick frameworks you'll end up plugging together other libraries for things like e.g. database access or web content serving/templating, with the maximally-thick approach that is included but opinionated. Same as before: no right answers, but be clear on the axis (or axes) along with you're choosing.

3. Choose how you'll be deploying/running the software, maybe after prototyping for awhile. This isn't "lock yourself into a cloud provider/hosting platform", but rather a choice about what tools you use with the hosting environment. Docker is pretty uncontentious here, if you want a generic way to run your Python app on many environments. So is "configure Linux instances to run equivalent Python/package versions to your dev/test environment". If you choose the latter, be aware that (and this is very important/often not discussed) many tools that the Python community suggests for local development or testing are very unsuitable for managing production environments (e.g. a tool based around shell state mutation is going to be extremely inconvenient to productionize).

Yeah, that's a lot of choices, but in general there are some pretty obvious/uncontentious paths there. Pyenv-for-interpreters/Poetry-for-packaging-and-project-management/Flask-for-web-serving/Docker-for-production is not going to surprise anyone or break any assumptions. Docker/raw-venv/Django is going to be just as easy to Google your way through.

Again, no one obvious right way (ha!) but plenty of valid options!

Not sure if that's what you were after. If you want a "just show me how to get started"-type writeup rather than an overview on the choices involved, I'm sure folks here or some quick googling will turn up many!

You might want to consider a different name though, as there's already a very popular python web framework called sanic: https://sanic.dev/

For those interested in the nitty-gritty of the application itself, the frontend is developed using vue.js with bulma.io css framework for styling. The backend is running on a laptop in my basement and is served by sanic.dev both for static content and api/websockets.

requests - A simple, yet elegant, HTTP library. sanic - Next generation Python web server/framework | Build fast. Run fast. click - Python composable command line interface toolkit elasticsearch-dsl-py - High level Python client for Elasticsearch panel - A high-level app and dashboarding solution for Python internetarchive - A Python and Command-Line Interface to Archive.org coconut - Simple, elegant, Pythonic functional programming

Personally I haven’t used it outside of trying a few very basic things. I’d recommend blacksheep if you want small, performant and low overhead, or sanic which, in my opinion, is the best choice if you do not need all the Django fluff.

check out https://sanic.dev or https://www.djangoproject.com for your backend