Brendan Arnold wrote: > Hi there, > > I realise that the Pylons team have done a great job of allowing > Pylons to work with multiple templating engines, database interfaces > etc. but doesn't this kind of go against the One True Way philosophy > of Python? It seems completely backwards to me that Rails is based on > a language that borrows more than a little from Perl and is pretty > free-form, although Pylons is a free-form framework based such a > 'railed' language as Python.
To quote import this: There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it. Is there one obvious way to do these things? When there is, yes, Pylons should take that path. When there isn't, then no, Pylons should not *pretend* there's one obvious way of doing something. The "one way to do it" philosophy in Python has always been an *ambition*, not a reality. Should you use classes or functions? Python doesn't tell you. Package or module? Dict or set? There's lots of choices. If there's a choice where neither choice is better -- even in a specific context -- then sure, you should choose one way. If there's a choice where one option is always the better option, then you should choose one way. This is not a One True Way philosophy, this is more an Intelligent Design philosophy. -- Ian Bicking | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://blog.ianbicking.org | Write code, do good | http://topp.openplans.org/careers --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
