On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > This is the usual assumption that high-level libraries are made of useless > cruft piled up by careless programmers. But there are actual reasons > why these frameworks have a significant amount of code, and people who > decide to ignore those reasons are simply bound to reimplement > non-trivial parts of those frameworks in less careful and less tested > ways (and they have to maintain it themselves afterwards).
Once again, that's a judgment call. Those frameworks are usually written to be generic and to support lots of different systems, and if all you need is one of them, it's not so obvious that you 'ought to' use the framework. You do not need Joomla when all you want is a whole lot of static HTML files by one person - look for a simpler framework that doesn't put heaps of emphasis on user management, or no framework at all (just some nice templating system). But yes. If you're reimplementing something, you have to have a VERY good reason. I'm much more likely to write a program that edits bindfiles than to write a DNS server (although I have done both - Pike makes it easy to do the latter, and I had one situation where I was using DNS in such a way that I actually needed to generate responses on-the-fly based on rules, rather than pre-write everything), because BIND9 already handles pretty much everything, and its definition files are simple and easy to manipulate. (That said, though, I have *frequently* gone for some kind of meta-file with a script that creates the actual bindfiles. Helps with keeping things consistent, making sure I do the version updates, and so on. But that's not rewriting BIND.) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list