I think the key here is the fact that Django is very scalable. When something starts going wrong with your system, Django has the tools available to figure out where the bottle necks are and it is quite simple. In the past I have hit bottlenecks with mod_python. That was easy to fix by switching to Wsgi and optimizing my sites with memcached. I have also had issues with databases, which is easy enough to figure out what calls are the heaviest, cache them better and possibly replicate my databases when I have to. If you anticipate to build sites as large as the Washington Post and Pownce then you know that Django's code is very usable, modular when you need to customize and verbose when you need to debug. Right now there are a lot of options for frameworks, personally I have found nothing that matches the stability, features and customizable as Django. Also nothing beats python IMHO.
The key is here, everyone doesn't have the same needs so you need to be prepared to optimize your own settings. The core Django code is sleek, simple and unassumptious and rightly so. The contrib apps you might find you'll need to customize a lot and Django makes that real easy to do. That isn't always the case with frameworks... My $0.02 On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:50 AM, Chris Hartjes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:04 AM, bcurtu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > But, turning back to my question... Can you tell these sites with > > thousands or hundreds of thousands hits per minute? Ok, let's leave > > apart their stats... Any big name on the internet? slashdot? twitter > > is RoR... > > > > I think you should worry about building something first, then worry about > whether or not it can handle huge amounts of traffic. If you are getting > thousands or hundreds of thousands of hits per minute then (a) you are doing > better than 99.999% of the web applications out there and (b) will be > creating custom solutions to your particular scaling problems. Twitter is > built on Rails, but has been heavily modified to meet their specific needs. > It wouldn't surprise me if Pownce was the same way. > > Before people get on my case, understand I'm not advocating doing no > planning at all in terms of thinking about scalability. I'm advocating > actually building something simple and to open standards as to make it > easier to scale out your app when the time comes. > > On this topic, any good tutorials on handling query caching and output > caching in Django? Those are two things I would build into any sort of web > app right from the beginning. > > -- > Chris Hartjes > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
