I want to start off by saying that I'm a huge python advocate and that I've been developing web applications in python for the last 3 years.
I decided to check out Rails a few months ago to see what the fuss was about. Although I was turned off by Ruby's syntax I really liked Rails. Here's a few things Rails does better than Pylons. - HTML layouts can be automatically associated at a controller or application level. You can do this with Mako or Genshi but with Rails it's "out of the box" and very intuitive - Honestly.. I found Active Record way easier to use than SQLAlchemy. You create a very simple mapping file that literally has two lines in it and you have a database ORM. - Rails has partials which are essentially tags. This makes it very easy to reuse HTML templates as widgets across your app If you are a pylons person you owe it to yourself to try out Rails and get a sense of another framework. I truly believe that Pylons can be improved with a few minor features. Chad On Feb 23, 7:48 pm, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Gavin E. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > SO HERE'S MY QUESTION: Is there any other MVC, in any language, which > > divides their MVC into more unique/swap-able pieces than Pylons? I > > see the future of web-based apps based on these interchangable 3rd > > party components. > > Pylons is just a glue of user-friendliness on top of Paste. The only > code native to Pylons is that which does not adequately exist in > lower-level projects. I challenge you to find what in Pylons *could* > be broken up into smaller pirces. > > WebOb was recently created as a framework-neutral request/response > object. If it becomes widely used outside Pylons, it will bring > another level of interoperability on top of that which WSGI provides. > > As for a similar product outside Python, not that I've seen. Python > has attracted a large number of people who like to tinker with web > frameworks, and thus has a large number of web frameworks. These > framework tinkerers have an allergy against other people's monolithic > frameworks. So WSGI was brought in to rectify the situation. If we > can't bring the number of frameworks down to one, let's at least make > them more interoperable. > > Perl, Ruby, Java, and PHP went a different route. A few people > created a framework in each of those languages, and most users just > used it rather than writing their own framework. This has been > attributed to how easy it is to build a framework in Python. If you > look through the Paste docs, it even tells you how to make your own > personal framework. :) > > If you're looking for something to do, you might want to look for > shortcomings in Pylons' component/interoperability model and suggest > improvements. > > -- > Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
