iain duncan wrote: > On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 10:37 -0800, Cliff Wells wrote: >> Dieter wrote: >>> Great, I think this should be put on the TG website for marketing >>> purposes :) ... Choice and flexibility is one thing I like about >>> TurboGears although I go by the defaults. But it's a good feeling to >>> know i can deviate from the default path if I want... something that >>> monolithic frameworks like Django and Rails do not provide, >>> unfortunately. >> Except that this isn't true. Both Django and Rails can be used with >> alternate template engines and can use different ORMs. As with >> TurboGears you might miss out on some of the built-in functionality if >> you do so, but that's the choice you make when you deviate from the >> mainstream. > > Django loses much more significant portions of its whole if you change > the ORM and the template engine though.
Django loses almost exactly what TurboGears loses: If you change the ORM in TurboGears you lose: - catwalk and much of the toolbox (aka the admin interface). If you change the ORM in Django you lose: - the admin interface (and couple other things that don't exist in TG anyway). You don't need to "change" the template engine in either framework. Both allow peaceful coexistance of multiple engines simultaneously so both come out equal on this part (i.e. losing nothing). The other things the author of that article talks about "losing" are specific to what's being replaced (template tags/filters, template integration of i18n, etc), so it isn't clear to me why he'd make it sound like a complaint. It's a bit like complaining that if you replace Perl with Python you lose the ability to inline regular expressions or use Perl features. The obviousness of these assertions renders them pretty pointless if you ask me. And these same assertions could be made if you replace components in TurboGears. It should also be noted that Django is moving to SQLAlchemy as well (although they plan to keep the Django API intact as a wrapper around it for obvious compatibility reasons, you'll still be able to use plain SA if you want). So, while not precisely true, > the statement is still in general a valid point. It isn't. It's both true and false in equal measure about both TurboGears and Django (Rails has none of these meta-features, so I'm not certain what you lose by using one of the alternate ORMS or template engines with that framework). Regards, Cliff --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears" 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/turbogears?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
