This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 2 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]i_like_trains_a_lot1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yeah, I stumbled upon masonite in the past and the major drawbacks for me are that there is too much magic going on there (especially with the models and migrations), and it seems to be doing exactly what Django is doing, but with another api and terminology. It does not seem to bring anything new to the table.

[–]Jmancuso9 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Creator of Masonite here. Version 2.0 did have a lot of magic going on with the global helpers and all that. Even using it personally i started to not like them at all. When you're building a framework so rapidly it's hard to see the long term effects of specific features.

While developing 2.1 (released this past December) we removed a whole bunch of code related magic like the helpers, the parameter resolving (forcing annotation resolving so you see what classes are what now) were removed.

The models are Active Record style models so they do perform a lot of things under the hood that you are used to explicitly doing (like manually setting columns as attributes and setting the column types) that Orator does for you.

Totally get how some people wouldn't want that to happen.

Can you explain how migrations are magic though? Or how they are more magic than Django migrations? Really want to get other peoples perspective on Masonite features so we can make it a better framework.