Pylons is light enough that breaking compatibility isn't as much of an issue as you would think. Pylons was one framework in a line of abandoned frameworks, each of which was mostly about providing the glue between unrelated components. Therefore, at any given time, you can get away with never having an upgrade, since there really aren't any features besides "just works" and a lack of features.
Just as some Linux distros are so stable as to be used 10 years later without anything but security fixes, the same is true with that crop of web framework. Therefore, many of the developers that Pylons appeals to won't view Pyramid as a continuation of Pylons, so much as that Pylons was good enough to not need further development, and that Pyramid is an alternative, competing, approach. Also, while Pylons did alright with Web 2.0, it really just excelled at Web 1.0. Selling Web 3.0 to the Pylons community in general is like trying to sell a 2010 honda hybrid to an antique ford collector (I'm personally not willing to give up on js progressive enhancement as a principle, but I am willing to give up on it and use web2py because I don't have enough time to do everything by hand). On Nov 6, 2:46 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > What can I say? They managed to break backward compatibility for 3 > frameworks at once. Users will be pissed. > > I did not really look in detail to comment on the technical merits but > I do find their MV argument (Pyramid is not MVC but MV very > confusing). > > Massimo > > On Nov 6, 3:18 pm, Luther Goh Lu Feng <elf...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 7, 3:31 am, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss/browse_thread/thread/97... > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears/browse_frm/thread/47779d858... > > > And web2py continues to watch from the shadows ready to pounce (j/k) > >
