On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Ben Bangert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Dec 6, 2008, at 9:31 AM, zunzun wrote: > >> Comparison before starting a project, used to decide which framework >> to use. >> Django: according to http://groups.google.com/group/django-users/about >> Members 12,016 >> Group Activity is High >> Pylons: according to http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss/about >> Members: 1,748 >> Group Activity is Low > > Really? That's how you decide? Then I believe you *must* choose PHP. It > completely dwarfs Django and Python altogether, its the only choice really > if you want to determine framework based on user-base (popularity). :)
Excellent answer. Pylons 0.9.7 is almost released, the main issue being finishing the documentation. In the meantime, the Pylons Book is pretty complete and covers the RC version. It's an axiom of open-source programming that the last 10% of a release takes N months longer than anticipated. N = 5 and counting for Pylons, and it has been > 12 for both Django and Cheetah in the past. Django's popularity is mainly due to superior marketing and documentation. They have a corporate backer and thus more people with those skills. Pylons' developers are mainly hackers/web programmers, who would rather build software than do marketing. So many people have not heard about Pylons or its voice gets drowned out. But Pylons has particular favor among those who like extremely modular tools, and those people have been coming to us. An interesting question is, why did [any framework's] users choose it? Django: - technical capability: same as Pylons/TurboGears. Not a reason to choose one over another. - design philosophy: build our own tools so it's well integrated. Some number of people like this. - completeness of toolset: if you need CMS tools, there may be some that are only available in Django and Plone currently. - tutorials: "I read Django's docs and they were easy to understand". A lot of people cite this. - marketing: "It seems everybody's using Django." or "I didn't know there were any other viable Python frameworks.": A lot of people say this. Pylons: - technical capability: the same. - design philosophy: use 3rd-party tools when feasable, WSGI to the core: many Pylons' enthusiasts come from this mindset. - completeness of toolset: the basic stuff is all there and then some. - tutorials: it takes a bit of work to find the relevant documentation. For 0.9.7, the Pylons Book is your best bet right now. For 0.9.6, the official docs are good. - marketing: there will be a stronger marketing push after 0.9.7 is released and the new website is finished. >> Guido van Rossum has blessed >> Django here: >> http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2006/aug/07/guidointerview/ That was written two years ago. At the time Guido also hoped Django and Pylons would merge. I don't think he understood the situation very well at that point, because Django and Pylons can't merge without one of them giving up its fundamental philosophy. And the ascent of WSGI makes a merger less necessary: what's needed is interoperability. Django has had a weakness on that point, but it's gradually getting better as it moves closer to WSGI. In any case, Guido now understands that multiple frameworks are here to stay (like multiple GUI libraries), and each has its unique strengths. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
