On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 14:53 -0700, Mike Orr wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Thomas G. Willis<[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I agree too. If Django supported sqlalchemy as well as it does it's > > own ORM I would likely be using it. But it seems like the price of all > > the cool stuff Django offers is living with their ORM. I don't know > > how this spins in favor of pylons though. It seems to me that TG > > should be more concerned with keeping up/competing with the Jone's. > > > > Pylons to me almost seems like Spring for the Web. My understanding of > > Spring is very light but it seems to me that the goal of loose > > coupling, or rather, as much coupling as YOU deem necessary is it's > > strength. Maybe Paste is responsible for that and Pylons is an MVC > > framework built on top of that? > > http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/mvc.html > > A lot of frameworks are doing more or less the same thing. This is > one of the reasons it's hard to say why Pylons is "better" from a user > perspective or killer-app perspective. I said earlier my favorite > advantage of Pylons: "modularity, which provides flexibility for the > future, because you don't know what you'll need in the future". Some > people objected that this is irrelevant to a newbie looking for a > framework, or a company nervous about using anything except the top 3 > mentioned in InfoWeek. But it's why *I* chose Pylons, and there are > at least a few other people looking for the same.
It's also a clear indicator that frankly, Pylons is not a newby oriented framework. So marketing it as such is not a good idea. > Perhaps Pylons' greatest asset is influence rather than popularity. > It's gaining respect and market share among those who know a lot about > Python frameworks. (There's a selling point for newbies.) It may > become the "central" framework in the way Debian has become central > among Linux distributors. It may not be the most popular, but it's > central because it's vendor neutral (doesn't favor one company over > another the way RedHat or Fedora do), and forms a reference > implementation. Pylons' use of Paste, Beaker, Routes, etc, validate > those libraries and has encouraged other frameworks to adopt them. > Pylons' smallness makes it nimble. We can use ToscaWidgets without > being tied down to it. We can take our time evaluating AuthKit vs > repoze.who/what. We can become the first adopter of whatever future > library may appear, and prove its (un)usefulness to the wider > Python-web world. Other frameworks reject Pylons' design decisions, > but they keep looking at Pylons for ideas, to see what works. So > Pylons has an influence much wider than its userbase. IMHO, the above is exactly the kind of thing we should have more of on the Pylons website for marketing! A realistic analysis of where Pylons shines and how it has or has not been important. Iain --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
