This slide was planned to be used for the Lightning Talk of LambdaConf 2015.
But I missed the chance.😞

Nice to meet you!

• Yuji Yamamoto(@igrep) age 26.
  • NO RELATION WITH “igrep.el”!
• Japanese Ruby engineer working at Sansan, Inc.
• Hobby Haskeller.
• Holding workshop of Haskell (Japanese) per month.

Which is your favorite?

• Yesod?
• Happstack?
• Snap?
• Scotty?
• Spock?
• Servant?

How about Apiary?

• Lightweight: Sinatra, Flask inspired.
  • The author created after getting annoyed by type-unsafety of Scotty.
• And as you might guess,
  • NO RELATION WITH “apiary.io”!

SYNOPSIS

[capture|/api/hello/|] $ do
  method GET . document "get hello" . action $ do
    contentType "application/json"
    bytes "{\"hello\":\"world\"}"

  method POST .
    ([key|name|] =: pMaybe pString) .
    document "say hello to +name+" .
    accept "text/plain" .
    action $ d 
      n <- param [key|name|]
      bytes "Hello, " <> n

So, what’s the difference?

Compared to Scotty:

• More type-safe.
  • Declare type of parameters.

So, what’s the difference?

Compared to Spock:

• More resouce-oriented routing.
  • Declare URL first.
  • Then the action.

So, what’s the difference?

Compared to Servant:

• Less typing keyboard thanks to QQ-based declaration:

• Doesn’t need type declaration.

• Doesn’t need to separate

Issues

• Less active development than Servant.
• Can’t generate JavaScript code like Servant.
• I’ve never tried codes in these slides!
  • Sorry if they don’t work :-p

Conclusion

• Apiary is more robust than Scotty and Spock,
• And handier than Servant.
• cabal install apiary