"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>  When looking at the google groups statistics for both Turbogears and
> Django, it is clear that the Django group is growing at a much more
> rapid pace than Turbogears, both in terms of membership and message
> activity, Whereas the Turbogears group does not appear to be
> attracting nearly as many new members and the activity of the list
> appears to be slowing down. Therefore, I am feeling that Django might
> be a better choice where long term sustainability is concerned. Does
> anyone feel that my concerns are warranted?

I don't follow your line of thought.  One can go for the opposite
direction and say that TG is easier to use so less people ask for help
on the mailing list or that TG's book is a good source of information or
that people prefer paid consulting for big projects or ...

I don't see a problem betting on TG and I'm developing some big
applications that will take me a long time -- from months to years.

One key point is that TG aims to be modular.  If you invest your time on
it and you want to replace a component, you can do that.  If for some
reason you decide that you need a different approach and TG by itself
doesn't allow you to take it, then you can keep the knowledge acquired
and code created to use the tools apart from TG.  Pylons has a similar
characteristic, but it isn't true for Django.

I'd either choose Pylons or TG.  And today, it looks like TG is
friendlier and easier to get started.  Pylons might pay in the long run
-- but then, you'll be able to use WSGI with TG as well and some app
sharing between those might be possible.

-- 
Jorge Godoy      <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to