On Mon, Dec 8, 2008 at 3:54 AM, Krishgy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If your questions needs to be answered quickly, Django may be right > choice. I think, you could have known why not to use PHP when you ask > question on Django vs Pylons :-) . > > I NEVER worked on Python at jobs. I wanted to create a website. I have > chosen Pylons over Django due to its customization feature & luxuries. > I have gathered small small frustration while working due to lack of > documentation & community support. I am very thankful for people who > helped me in some cases. I spend more time on Pylons. Now I don't have > time & interest to learn another framework. I have to go with Pylons. > > All I would ask seniors/library developers of pylons to respond to the > questions asked by newbies like me. Let the newcomers to feel good > about using Pylons by heart. I REALLY don't understand what do you > people mean by marketing Pylons. I tried to use authkit in my project, > which is evil in my project life. I asked many questions here but got > no reply. I do not expect such a thing from a matured community. > that is because a) the author or authkit is never around b) authkit is way over complicated c) autukit sucks in other ways d) all of the above.
that said, I do think that a default auth should be added to pylons, as it's a "pretty common feeture" but that's another discussion. if you hate your tool then change it. Now don't come back complaining that django wants you to do things in X,Y and Z way, and even if that's bad/dumb/not-the-best you will expend way way more time trying to get around it. > Things are changing but very slowly. > > Sorry about my English. > > > > > On Dec 7, 5:30 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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 tohttp://groups.google.com/group/django-users/about >> >> Members 12,016 >> >> Group Activity is High >> >> Pylons: according tohttp://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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
