Well, in keeping with the spirit of the link referenced, at least its not trac!
Seriously, though, psycopg2 is an open source library with a history of working pretty well for what it does. AFAIK there is not a great deal of money behind it, and so they may not have the prettiest or most useful, or even at this time a working website to show it off. But boy do the boys in Redmond! They got sites galore with lots of cool stuff and slick graphics. So how should we evaluate software? based on pretty sites? While MS may have great websites, their code is a dark well, shrouded in mystery; veiled, if you will. I am not saying that all MS products are necessarily bad, but we really have no idea whether or not they can be considered 'high quality software.' However, we can evalaute psycopg2 to see if it is a ' high quality piece of software' by reviewing the source code, if necessary, to justify using it. hth, -richard On 6/24/08, Will <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm working on a project I'd like to use Django for, though my first > hurdle will be convincing a team of highly qualified scientists, > programmers and computer scientists that this is a good idea. > > Given we are most likely going to use PostgreSQL, This isn't > particularly inspiring: > http://www.initd.org/ > > Why should we trust psycopg2 to be a high quality piece of software? > > Will > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
