mix_install_examples VS livebook

Ya, it's fair, it's a common complaint! Though the size of the generated files is nothing compared to Rails :D

You're right that phx_new does count too. It's a bit misunderstood that Phoenix is actually closer to a micro-framework like Flask than it is a full-fledged solution like Django or Rails. What takes it up to their level is `mix phx.new`, so your argument is more on point than I initially thought. The LiveView issue tracker even provides a single-file version of a Phoenix app to re-create your issue in [0]. As you can see, it's not as simple as something like Flask, but not as complex as the generator does.

Again, great article and happy to have you aboard ;)

Also, if you want an auth solution without code generation, there is Pow [1]

[0] https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples/blob/main...

- learning how to compute the checksum of the internal content of a zip file https://github.com/etalab/transport-site/blob/master/scripts...

As mentioned in the article, I can definitely recommend to check out https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples which has a long list of examples.

Streaming ChatGPT via SSE in Elixir: https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples/pull/22#i...

love elixir. hate Mix.

it's like using Maven or npm all over again. but even worse because it generates a lot of code.

it creates disposable projects by design. No way to keep track of what to change when mix create outputs something different next year.

and now things like https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples/blob/main... where is ecto even installed? download from where? so annoying this trend.

Like others have told you, Phoenix doesn't really add much complexity / fat / weight. In terms of complexity, if you don't want to use phx_new to boostrap the project here's a sample of using Phoenix LiveView in a single script file: https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples/blob/main/phoenix_live_view.exs

If you want to play around with Ecto in isolation, you can (thanks to `Mix.install/2`) work in single-files, all containing the migrations, the schemas and configuration.

Check-out this repository for an example (and other single-file examples):

https://github.com/wojtekmach/mix_install_examples/blob/main...

To get started you need a running instance of Livebook

LiveBook site

I prefer functional programming with Livebook[1] for this type of thing. Once you run a cell, it can be published right into a web component as well.

[1] - https://livebook.dev

If you're a coder, Livebook might be worth a look too. I certainly have my eyes on it.

Would highly recommend looking at Jose's use of livebook to answer these. It makes testing easier. It's old but still relevant. Video link inside

That's hard to say. Racket is a rather complete language, as is F# and Elixir. And F# and Racket are extremely capable multi-paradigm languages, supporting basically any paradigm. Elixir is a bit more restricted in terms of its paradigms, but that's a feature oftentimes, and it also makes up for it with its process framework and deep VM support from the BEAM.

I would say that the key difference is that F# and Elixir are backed by industry whereas Racket is primarily backed via academia. Thus, the incentives and goals are more aligned for F# and Elixir to be used in industrial settings.

Also, both F# and Elixir gain a lot from their host VMs in the CLR and BEAM. Overall, F# is the cleanest language of the three, as it is easy to write concise imperative, functional, or OOP code and has easy asynchronous facilities. Elixir supports macros, and although Racket's macro system is far more advanced, I don't think it really provides any measurable utility over Elixir's. I would also say that F# and Elixir's documentation is better than Racket's. Racket has a lot of documentation, but it can be a little terse at times. And Elixir definitely has the most active, vibrant, and complete ecosystem of all three languages, as well as job market.

The last thing is that F# and Elixir have extremely good notebook implementations in Polyglot Notebooks (https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-dotne...) and Livebook (https://livebook.dev/), respectively. I would say both of these exceed the standard Python Jupyter notebook, and Racket doesn't have anything like Polyglot Notebooks or Livebook. (As an aside, it's possible for someone to implement a Racket kernel for Polyglot Notebooks, so maybe that's a good side project for me.)

So for me, over time, it has slowly whittled down to F# and Elixir being my two languages that I reach for to handle effectively any project. Racket just doesn't pull me in that direction, and I would say that Racket is a bit too locked to DrRacket. I tried doing some GUI stuff in Racket, and despite it having an already built framework, I have actually found it easier to write my own due to bugs found and the poor performance of Racket Draw.

This looks very similar to LiveBook¹. It is purely Elixir/BEAM based, but is quite polished and seems like a perfect workflow tool that is also able to expose these workflows (simply called livebooks) as web apps that some functional, non-technical person can execute on his/her own.

1: https://livebook.dev/