Hello there, I went through the same stuff, and yes, its ugly, but people hate writing documentation. Django has other total no-go's for me. The URL mapping system for example is a joke compared to ObjectDispatch's power and flexibility. Their ORM compared to SQLAlchemy is inferiour and less elegant. All in all Django is what the website states, a framework for perfectionists with deadlines. Some things are solved pragmatically simple, of course they work, but they arent nearly as elegant as TG. Of course Django has excellent documentation as well, but it is on the market much longer than TG. I also consider TG serious work in progress, and it will evolve sooner or later, to something better than Django. (imho)
Having said that, Django currently seems the better choice when you need something done painlessly and quickly. I did a rather large project in TG and the documentation is a constant pain. Also the beauty often comes as a lot of cost. In the end I could have completed the entire project in half the time with PHP. The way I see it, TG is still young, much stuff to come. Especially now with the Pylons merge. My five cents... Tom On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:29 PM, bvdb <[email protected]> wrote: > - Rant about TurboGears2 - > > After some years of experience with PHP development (and a bit with > RoR and J2EE) I decided it's time for improvement. Python was often > mentioned by friends as a superior scripting language, I checked it > out and yes: Handling of strings, arrays, functions and objects is > much more concise, there is a fresh spirit of keeping things simple > and clear. > This should be the platform of choice for new projects of mine and > something I could recommend honestly to clients, partners and friends. > From all python web frameworks TurboGears appeared as first choice, > mainly because of SQLalchemy (having experience with deficiencies of > ActiveRecord in RoR). > > Now, before the first 'hello world' from the apache webserver there > was some configuration to do for the wsgi interface. PHP works easily > in this aspect, but one can accept a bit more effort for a less > popular but superior platform. > > TurboGears offers a "standard deployment pattern", that sounded well > thought-out: > http://turbogears.org/2.1/docs/main/Deployment/Standard.html > What happened over the next days can be followed in the thread > "modwsgi_deploy Helper Script" on this newsgroup. > > - In short, it's a mess. - > The steps described on ../ModWSGI.html don't work as described, > contain implicit assumptions that other installations were done > before, mix names ('myapp' / 'tg2env'), do not mention projects (being > organized _inside_ virtual environments, right?) etc. > Then if, after consulting this group, the /apache folder is finally > created, the config files therein contain paths to folders never seen > before ('/usr/local/turbogears'). So although making some effort to > install a special config-generator script, this does not bother to > test the paths it uses. > Part of the README that is generated in apache/ repeats the very steps > that were neccessary to generate it. > Then myapp.wsgi does not do much more than define some paths that > could easily be handled via command-line. > - end of mess-description - > > The whole process seems to be aimed more at mystifying a python-apache > deployment. > Ok, one might see this as part of the open source culture, that is not > always efficient and functional, like every culture. > > Then I read the TG home page again: "Rapid web developement > framework", and 2.1 claims "Build a database-driven app in minutes!" - > but they missed out ".. albeit it might take a couple of days to > configure your box for 'Hello world'". > That's where "Sand in my Joints", an old anti-hippie punk song (by > Wire) came to my mind.. > > Did someone from TG ever try to convince a developer using another > language to switch over to TG? In this case you would have shown him > how easy it was to install .. and then you'd notice that you were > wrong. Seems no one ever did this test (and TG 2.0 is out since May > 2009). > I came from PHP to Python because the language is so much more clean, > concise and elegant. It seems this was only one part of the python > community while the other half cherishes its nerd attitude. > Maybe the rest of the package works perfect, but judging from the docs > it looks to me there are more blind spots. > > It's sad because the concept of combining SQLalchemy, ToscaWidgets and > Genshi is promising. > It seems what the people from Django achieve is not (only) setting the > words nicely in the docs but organizing the setup and structures in a > clear way, then it actually _works_ nicely, so the docs describing it > come out this way. > > My proposal to the developers is: Quit TurboGears, and contribute your > knowledge about SQLalchemy (and maybe Pylons, Genshi, Mako, > Toscawidgets etc) to extend Django. > This way a python web platform could evolve strong enough to compete > against PHP, RoR and J2EE alternatives - not only conceptually but in > working systems. > > / Bernd > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
