What's the web programming language for true patricians

HTML + PHP + some JS is all you need for a website.

spring + some js frontend framework

>>62404534
>spring
JAVA fo web development?

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>62404534
>not ASP.NET

kys

>>62404575
is asp really good?

i am c# noob and kinda want to go into webdev, asp would really be preferable over php in my opinion

Python if you want "exotic", otherwise it's plain old php, some js and html.
If you claim to be in need of something like a server within a server to process your obscure language before delivering, you are the hipster destroying web development.

Perl CGI

>>62404628
Yes, it's the standard for MVC.

>>62404765
>Perl CGI
This Perl for life.

>>62404796
KEKtor for KEKlin

lel

>>62404523

Ahaha, this can't be real..


>>62404628

No, it's hell.
Avoid if you can.


>>62404668

Is it 2009 again?
Python is not really "exotic", if you want that go for Go, Clojure or Elixir.


>>62404765

Oldies, but goldies!


>>62404444

Nice quads!

Rails is not bad, I've enjoyed it a lot and it brought me some money. It's still the best if you want to hack together a CRUD app in no time.

But today I think Rails is going too far when it comes to abstraction and hinding. When you know you SQL (and you should learn it someday), active record is a crutch. Yes, you can easily switch from Postgres to MySQL later, but why should that ever be an issue? I also started to dislike that "config over configuration" does mean, If you have to do configuration you have 5 places where you can look for it.

I would still recommend Rails for a newbie, because it does a lot of things right and makes life so easy. And I would still use it for some fast haxx0ry. But Rails just has too much dominance in the Ruby world. Today I prefer frameworks like Hanami or Sinatra, check them out! Or if you don't necesasrily want Ruby, look at Elixir, it almost feels like Rails and is so much better under the hood..

File: main-qimg-3965add7c3c3703ad6b41254a8664767.png (19KB, 560x210px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 560x210px

>>62404457

This.

>>62405208
t. pajeet

>>62405208
>Interpreting 1k plus lines instead of the needed 4