Mike Orr wrote:
This woven-together approach is one of Pylons' unique strengths but it's arguably more developer-intensive, meaning less time for marketing until things stablize more.
It's definitely a strength and it's the reason I choose to go with Pylons myself. I'm a newb when it comes both Python and web development, but I'm experienced software engineer, and it's been experience that 1) frameworks become more of bane then a boon as soon as you go beyond what they do well, 2) I usually develop apps that go beyond what any existing framework does well. While some folks call Pylons a framework or light weight framework, personally, I wouldn't, since it lacks coupling between the different subsytems (i.e. don't like Routes, fine replace it, want to use your own custom data provider, fine go ahead, decide you don't like Myghty, go ahead and use Kid instead, etc.).
Webware knocked Zope off the throne, CherryPy knocked Webware (with help from Quixote), TG knocked CherryPy, Django and TG are neck-in-neck now, who knows who will be top dog next year?
Hopefully it will be a framework(s) that is built on top of Pylons. That way when folks figure out the framework is in their way they'll hopefully have an easier time working around it. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
