On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Tom Longson (nym)<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I think the relative number of django apps in the wild vs pylons apps
> is a good indicator of how "easy" it is to get something launched. Not
> that I don't <3 pylons, but django's developer base speaks for itself.
> Either that, or pylons needs a marketing campaign with a pony or
> something.
It has a pony, and a unicorn. See paste.pony.
def make_pony(app, global_conf):
"""
Adds pony power to any application, at /pony
"""
return PonyMiddleware(app)
Regarding the greater issue of Pylons marketing, it has been long
recognized that it could use improvements. Two things are holding it
back:
- Programmers don't have the best marketing skills.
- There's too much work getting Pylons 1.0 ready, which takes priority.
Some essential pieces have gradually been done. The website rewrite,
the Pylons 0.9.7 documentation, the Pylons book, and the logo/Egyptian
theme. What we need now is people with marketing skills who are not
Pylons developers (thus not distracted by development). If you'd like
to do marketing, you can discuss your ideas here or on pylons-devel.
Regarding the number of developers, that may or may not indicate
superior quality. When a similar issue came up in January regarding
the userbase size, Ben made this astute observation:
===
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). :)
===
I personally use Pylons because its modular nature (middleware, webob,
routes separated from actions, etc) was the kind of framework I'd
always wanted. That and its developers had experience in Javascript,
authorization, model and template structure, Windows deployment,
threading, Unicode, etc -- things which my previous framework
(Quixote) lacked. Compared to Django, Pylons' documentation is weak
in a few areas, but its modular nature makes it more future-proof: if
a better implementation or a new technology comes along, the
developers can plug it in (or you can plug it in if they don't). Many
of Django's distinguishing features are tied to its unique ORM. You
can use SQLAlchemy with Django, but then you lose access to these
features. Over the longer horizon, some Pylons and Repoze developers
have started working on a next-generation framework which will be
even more modular (it may be available next year, but no promises).
Still, it shows that progress is being made.
--
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
