The others are the current latest version, python version we support, how many people are on our discord (A metric to see community activity), and a badge that points to our docs. I think all of these are important but open to suggestions on ones you think would serve a better purpose.
I expect tests to always be passing before merging anything.
pypi metadata has the list of supported python versions, in text format
A link to your documentation? Ok but why can't it be a regular link?
I use forums or IRC, so the online users on whatever aren't super meaningful to me personally.
We will look into this, I think the info is still important to show but there probably is a better more inclusive way of doing it.
What, specifically, is the issue with the badges concerning accessibility? Most badges I see can be reduced to a div containing two spans and some text, which should be usable with a screen reader. Is there missing alt text, aria attributes, etc?
Re: tests, it comes down to developer culture. It may be acceptable for experimental or alpha/beta versions to not pass tests, live on a separate branch, etc. Distros should be live-testing any packages they ship, too; upstream releases aren't guaranteed to be tested, depending on the upstream you're working with. It's nice to know that the latest commit is actually working without having to double check CI locally. However, tests also aren't created equally. The project author(s) could be learning how to refine their tests, and not actually trust the CI's results (yet).
Can we argue that's sloppy, or that they should've never done that before merging and pushing? Sure. Not sure where it gets us. Actionable feedback and cautionary advice is useful, though.
If a test is not working/outdated, remove or fix the test. It's not what the badge is showing anyway.
I was hoping there is some technical explanation how the compilation step works (especially what do they do to event handlers) but their documentation is very light on details.
You need to prefix the url, ie.
view-source:https://news.ycombinator.com/No offense, but the play framework docs are objectively worse, it feels very "enterprisey" and too many clicks (the "Hello World Tutorial" spans 3 pages)
Do we have benchmarks for this? More generally speaking, I don't see more technical differentiation besides it being a Python DSL. Nor do they provide numbers to back it up.
In general, I think the readme's not bad. I think the example is eye-catching, and I can imagine this would be really nice to make a prototype with. Whether or not it would scale well etc, yes, it would be good to have some of that detail. But I can see a really good use for it already.
Lets compare this with for example play https://www.playframework.com/ I know from this that it built on Akka, its stateless, aims for predictable resource consumption, has non-blocking io, etc. There is a ton of really important information on what does this web framework actually do that is really important when you are making a choice of a framework.
I have no idea how good this framework is, but besides a few toy examples, I can't see anything that makes me thing "wow this is great I need to use this". Using python to generate front end attributes isn't new, most any web framework can do this also.