On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Mario Ruggier <ma...@ruggier.org> wrote: > > On Jan 19, 2009, at 8:05 PM, Mike Orr wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:05 PM, walterbyrd <walterb...@iname.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> And if so, why? >> >> Everybody who uses Pylons knows that other frameworks exist and had >> maybe tried one or two others, but has made a conscious choice that >> they like Pylons' style better. > > Hi Mike, I think I understand perfectly the intention of what you are > saying here, but the last almost off-handish reference to "style" made > me do a double-take on what you mean... What I do not "understand" is > that given all the noisy promises of an ideal world where all python > web applications are built following wsgi and installed with > setuptools, the difference we are talking about cannot be simply > written off as a matter of "style", but more architectural and > philosophical. Pylons has, with the best of intentions, tried to > embrace the "new" open-architecture as fully as possible. And, it pays > and will continue to pay a fairly high price for that choice...
> Example of past price paid, just look at the number of what-should-be- > a-non-issue installation problems in the mail archive. search django list for geodjango, search for "using app X with app Y", installations issues always happen when you have more than one source of packages. That said most of the "installation issues" on this list are simply people trying to get authkit going enough said. > Example of > price to pay, iiuc, apparently wsgi/paste/whatever has some unicode > issues, so pylons has to wait for those to be fixed and third-party > released to be able to even consider 3.0? Excuse me? > now this is interesting. I actually see that as an advantage. if some some reason paste becomes an evil thing, you simply drop it and replace it for something better. It happen to SO with SA, it has happen several times with templating engines. webob was introduced to pylons and no one didn't even notice. If you look at the other side of the track you just can't get rid of django ORM without killing half the framework. So the price to pay is that you have to think what components you have to use instead of simply following the needs of a newspaper editorial room. Ok that sounded derogative :) Django is very good at some things, pylons is good at all things and that comes with a price, but a good price to pay. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
