On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/5/23 Paul Makepeace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > you probably haven't even looked at Django, which in some significant > > areas is way ahead of Catalyst. > > Care to name a few ? > > I couldn't see any when I browsed the website. > * The ORM doesn't offer anything that DBIx::Class doesn't as far as I could > see DBIx::Class is certainly powerful, and the dev team is superbly smart; the list is friendly & helpful too. That said, I find it's substantially more complicated (versus complex) and difficult to use, esp if you have an SQL background. You have to really jump through hoops to get some basic (in SQL) stuff done, and only really recently the docs have got to the point where you don't have to be a core developer to make full use of it. Having worked with Cat & DBIC for 2+ years I'm still not clear that a "fuck it, just use SQL with some handy convenience layer" wouldn't be a better solution. Much as I detest PHP-the-language whenever I'm banging my head against some weird DBIC issue I long for a kinder, gentler time with something like PHP. * The dispatching doesn't work as well as either Maypole or Catalyst > (again as far as I could see) > * The Templating system seems roughly equivilent to Mason ( " " " " " > "), certainly not in the same league as TT (which I believe is being > ported to python) The dominant impression I got from the perl audience when Django was presented alongside Catalyst/TT in London a while back, was "OMG it's TT". No-one I heard mentioned mason. Mason is perl; Django template language & TT are distinct mini-languages. Quite different. > The scaffold/admin thing looks quite cool, slightly more DWIM than > Catalyst or Maypole, but not "way ahead". Well IMO it is way ahead. There is nothing like that in Catalyst, even if you look at what Django had over two years ago. Sorry to cop-out but I can't be arsed to go into this because I'd say the choice of languages or frameworks or other fodder that drives so many of these ultimately, ahem, narrowly focussed discussions are quite separate from the business drivers, like "what do most of your eng team program in?" / "where can I find programmers for X?" or "how much will they cost?" or "what does my hosting platform support?" or "how much time can I realistically invest in this?" or "how do the available libraries bear on my particular problem?" that even if you came up with The Framework Answer it would still only have marginal impact on such a decision. I find those business issues just so much more interesting, but that's just me :-) Paul > Seriously, I've been working with a few python and php guys who are > looking at which frameworks to use, and have an active interest in > frameworks. > > I'm looking forward to starting a 3.x branch of Maypole that drops > some backward compatibility with 2.x and uses the new HTTP::Engine > project to simplify server interaction so I can focus on the really > useful stuff. Any new ideas , particularly ideas that have been tried > and proven in the field in Django or Catalyst deployments would be > really interesting. > > Reply offlist if you like. > > A. > > -- > http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk > LAMP System Integration, Development and Hosting > _______________________________________________ > BristolBathPM mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm >
_______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
