Get Advice Icon

Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

Dancer

39
34
+ 1
4
Play

756
609
+ 1
496
Add tool

Dancer vs Play: What are the differences?

What is Dancer? Simple but powerful web application framework for Perl. Dancer is a free and open source micro web application framework written in Perl.

What is Play? The High Velocity Web Framework For Java and Scala. Play Framework makes it easy to build web applications with Java & Scala. Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture. Built on Akka, Play provides predictable and minimal resource consumption (CPU, memory, threads) for highly-scalable applications.

Dancer and Play can be categorized as "Frameworks (Full Stack)" tools.

Dancer and Play are both open source tools. Play with 11.2K GitHub stars and 3.77K forks on GitHub appears to be more popular than Dancer with 446 GitHub stars and 264 GitHub forks.

Advice on Dancer and Play
Leonardo Viada
Project manager and web developer at Revo Digital · | 4 upvotes · 2.7M views
Needs advice
on
PlayPlayRailsRails
and
ScalaScala
at

In the past few months, a project we're working on grew up quite fast. Since we're adding more and more features, I'm considering migrating my Express/TS REST API towards a more solid and more "enterprise-like" framework. Since I am experienced with TypeScript but not so much with Rails nor Play (Scala), I'd like to have some advice on which one could provide the best development experience, and most importantly, the smoothest paradigm transition from the JS/TS world. I've worked on some personal project with Rails, but I've found the Ruby language really distant from what the TypeScript ecosystem and syntax are, whereas on the opposite - during the brief tours I've taken in the past weeks - it's been a pleasure coding in Scala. Obviously, there are some key differences between the two languages - and the two frameworks consequently - but despite all the ROR automation and ease of use I don't despise at all Scala's pragmatic and great features such as static typing, pattern matching, and type inference. So... Please help me out with the choice! Regards

See more
Replies (4)
Kevin Emery
QE Systems Engineer at Discovery, Inc. · | 6 upvotes · 59.2K views
Recommends
on
RailsRails

I don't have the Scala experience to compare the two, but I can say that Ruby is a wonderful language. For procedural programming where you don't need a lot of concurrent execution threads, it's superior to Node.JS in my opinion. All of the concepts from Typescript have equivalent syntax in Ruby, but there are fewer symbols (e.g. () => { ... }); ) and more keywords (eg 'do ... end'). It's a very flexible language and allows for a lot of different approaches to how it's written, so coding standards and careful organization is important. In the long run, however, you'll find it quicker to debug than Node.JS and just as powerful.

See more
ALESSIO SALTARIN
Distinguished IT Architect at IBM · | 5 upvotes · 60.2K views

If you are comfortable with TypeScript, why not evolve to a C# ecosystem? Asp.Net Core + Entity Framework is a mature and well supported technology. As far as I can see in the enterprise market, the most adopted choice is still Java. So, maybe you may have a look to SpringBoot - and ultimately Quarkus.

See more
Hosam Aly
Senior Software Engineer · | 3 upvotes · 51.3K views
Recommends
on
PlayPlayRailsRailsScalaScala

If software performance is your top priority, then Scala/Play is probably best. If developer productivity is your top priority, then Ruby on Rails is the best choice in my opinion.

The Rails framework is batteries-included. The framework takes care of many things by default so that you don't have to. Logging, security, etc. It's also well-integrated; for example, controllers understand models out of the box. I had a better experience with RoR than with Play.

On the other hand, Scala and the JVM are more performant in general, so they can scale to serve more requests per second on the same hardware.

If you're considering serverless functions, then Scala is probably a better choice because it would be faster to load, giving you better economics.

See more
Reza Malek
at Meam Software Engineering Group · | 3 upvotes · 51.4K views
Recommends
on
RailsRailsScalaScala

This is advice regardless of your background and requirements. The Play framework has a terrible and complicated design, don't risk it. I even suggest Spring and Kotlin over it! You can use Scala for small services and Data Engineering stuff and benefit optimizations and threading of JVM. RoR, on the other hand, has a huge development speed, which I believe is a big advantage cause you can handle performance bottlenecks later. Also, Scala has another downside, which is featureful in terms of OO and FP paradigms, which makes anyone write code freely with any personal style and makes it a problem in a team, Hence a coding style has to be defined if there would be Scala development team.

See more
Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
Learn More
Pros of Dancer
Pros of Play
  • 1
    Fast
  • 1
    Easy
  • 1
    Stable
  • 1
    Microframework
  • 81
    Scala
  • 55
    Web-friendly architecture
  • 55
    Built on akka
  • 50
    Stateless
  • 47
    High-scalable
  • 46
    Fast
  • 40
    Open source
  • 34
    Java
  • 27
    High velocity
  • 24
    Fun
  • 9
    Lightweight
  • 8
    Non-blocking io
  • 6
    Developer friendly
  • 5
    Simple template engine
  • 4
    Scalability
  • 3
    Pure love
  • 2
    Resource efficient

Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions

Cons of Dancer
Cons of Play
    Be the first to leave a con
    • 3
      Evolves fast, keep up with releases
    • 1
      Unnecessarily complicated

    Sign up to add or upvote consMake informed product decisions

    167
    264
    717
    343
    732

    What is Dancer?

    Dancer is a free and open source micro web application framework written in Perl.

    What is Play?

    Play Framework makes it easy to build web applications with Java & Scala. Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture. Built on Akka, Play provides predictable and minimal resource consumption (CPU, memory, threads) for highly-scalable applications.

    Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!

    What companies use Dancer?
    What companies use Play?
    Manage your open source components, licenses, and vulnerabilities
    Learn More

    Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions

    What tools integrate with Dancer?
    What tools integrate with Play?

    Blog Posts

    What are some alternatives to Dancer and Play?
    Mover
    Mover is the best way to migrate or back up files between cloud storage providers and traditional servers. We connect to services like Dropbox, Box, Google Drive, OneDrive, FTP, WebDAV, S3 and many others.
    Mojolicious
    Back in the early days of the web, many people learned Perl because of a wonderful Perl library called CGI. It was simple enough to get started without knowing much about the language and powerful enough to keep you going, learning by doing was much fun. While most of the techniques used are outdated now, the idea behind it is not. Mojolicious is a new attempt at implementing this idea using state of the art technology.
    JavaScript
    JavaScript is most known as the scripting language for Web pages, but used in many non-browser environments as well such as node.js or Apache CouchDB. It is a prototype-based, multi-paradigm scripting language that is dynamic,and supports object-oriented, imperative, and functional programming styles.
    Python
    Python is a general purpose programming language created by Guido Van Rossum. Python is most praised for its elegant syntax and readable code, if you are just beginning your programming career python suits you best.
    Node.js
    Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.
    See all alternatives