Chris McDonough wrote:
> On 5/4/09 1:21 AM, Iain Duncan wrote:
>> Hi folks, I'm new here and was wondering if there is a good Repoze.bfg
>> to Grok comparison page anywhere. If not, I'd like to recommend that it
>> would be a great addition to the docs. I know there is a brief
>> comparison up there, but to someone like me who is experienced in
>> Pylons/TG/Django style stuff but new to Zope, I'm pretty confused about
>> whether I should learn zope by trying out Zope 3, Grok, or Repoze.bfg
>> and what the pros and cons of each approach are.
> I'm afraid there isn't much in the way of documents comparing Grok to BFG or
> Zope 3 to BFG as a web framework. The Repoze/Zope/Grok communities overlap a
> good bit so everyone is quite nice to each other about their frameworks. ;-)
> In general, though, these days I think it's safe to say if you want Zope3,
> want Grok. "Want Zope3" can be defined as "want ZODB, want Zope-style
> form-generation, want ZPT". If you want something smaller that feels similar
> but doesn't make as many choices for you, BFG is probably the way to go.
Grok's big. It has a lot of features (good), and a lot of code (a
liability). It makes choices about the defaults more than BFG does. Due
to its Zope 3 heritage it doesn't tend to lock you into defaults very
much, but they're there and that might be trouble enough for some.
Grok and Zope 3 are extremely similar systems and are (mostly) mutually
compatible. Grok is definitely a far easier way to get started with Zope
3 than Zope 3 itself is, as Zope 3 has traditionally had sucky
documentation (with some exceptions, in particular Philipp von
Weitershausen book on it). Grok has reasonable documentation in
reasonable quantity, though could always be better.
BFG is small. It has less features (so more to write yourself), and less
code (so easier to understand and hack on). It makes fewer choices and
also simply does less. BFG has excellent documentation from what I've seen.
BFG is a lot faster, though Grok's not exactly a slow-poke either, and
probably more than fast enough for most projects. Grok has more legacy
cruft due to it being built on a huge amount of the Zope Toolkit stack,
though Zope Toolkit legacy cruft is probably like other people's
non-cruft. But it's still cruft and we still need to get rid of it.
As a lead developer on Grok, I obviously would recommend Grok for its
features (and a wide selection of extensions in the Zope Toolkit and
Grok world which you can use), and its ability to deliver those features
"out of the box".
That said, I also see the great attraction in something lighter and
simpler, and I'm jealous of BFG for that reason. So we're trying to fix
Grok (and the underlying code) so it's going to be more simple
underneath. But it will be a very long time coming, and BFG will very
likely be simpler forever. And do less forever. :)
Repoze-dev mailing list