On Wednesday, February 6, 2019 at 1:27:18 AM UTC-8, Eric Pascual wrote: > > Hi Derek, > > but I have never seen anyone refer to it as a "lightweight" project > (before you, that is). > > I didn't meant "Django *is* lightweight" but "Django *can be* > lightweight", implied you configure it accordingly. >
To be clear, I'm talking about stock Django. Out of the box, Django is already lightweight for all practical intents and purposes. I've *never* encountered a problem with startup time, memory usage, or speed due to Django itself. I don't need to remove the ORM or tweak the template layer or anything else. Out of the box, Django is already fast. Therefore, I cannot seem to find a use case that makes Flask worth all of the additional dev time that it requires worth it. > What really matters is : "will the job be done ?". Yep. And quickly. In execution time, there is no metric I care about where "Flask wins" but in development time, stock Django is way ahead of Flask. > > I agree that what could be added in Django documentation is a section > explaining how to strip its default application setting down to the minimal > stuff for equating solutions such as Flask, > No need. Django doesn't need to be stripped down - it's already plenty fast for virtually every web project. Even the smallest ones. But as small projects grow into large/complex ones, Django has your back while Flask does not. ./s -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/8652bc68-3857-4d91-a3ba-8868ec63f636%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
