On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
Philip Semanchuk a écrit :
(snip)
From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if
you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize
as, say, Pylons.
That was my first impression too, and was more or less true some
years ago. After more experience, having gained a deeper knowledge
of Django's internals, I can tell you this is just not true. You can
"customize" it as you want - meaning: you can use any ORM (or no ORM
at all) and any template language you want, as long as you don't
intend to use django's ORM and template language related features
(which just don't exist in Pylons). IOW : Django is just as flexible
as Pylons (or pretty close to), but has more to offer if you stick
to builtin components.
Based on what I read, I got the idea that Django *can* be as flexible
as Pylons, but most people find it *easier* to take advantage of
Pylons' flexibility. In other words, no one is saying Django is
incapable, but that it is less focused on making it easy to allow
developers to mix & match components and more focused on providing a
smooth tool with which to work.
NB : not to dismiss Pylons, which is a pretty great framework too,
and use IMHO better default components (namely SQLAlchemy and Mako).
I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
