Isn't a wiki a good idea?? On Friday, 13 July 2012 11:42:51 UTC-3, NSC wrote: > > For my part, I'm a true fan of web.py. I've used most of the options out > there at least once, from ASP.NET to Django to Rails. Each has a > purpose, some (Rails) were just too damn complicated for me personally to > get my head around and others (.NET) just don't make it easy for you to do > thing any way other than the (well documented yet often inefficient) way. > > All these options out there work well for what I'll call a "moderately > basic" web application, but fall short when things (inevitably) get > complicated. We've all at least once spend days trying to jump some hurdle > because our application is just "special" and our toolkit just doesn't > quite fit. > > For example: I don't wanna be forced to abstract my database into objects > and compartmentalize my code into MVC. (I like sql, and am good at it.) I > don't wanna have four technologies (html/css/js/php) intertwined all in one > file. I don't want to compile all my code every time I change one line > just to test it. > > Some of my objects actually have sub-classes six levels deep. Most of my > objects have at least a dozen methods, can be queried for presentation in > multiple ways (list, edit dialog, draggable item, etc), and can deliver > themselves in dictionary, json or xml format. > > Web.py empowered me to start working immediately, without having to mess > around with any of the HTTP crap. Since my pages are well more complicated > than tables, buttons and forms, I've not used the templating bit. Because > I already had a solid database layer (and my application connects to > multiple databases defined customly at runtime) I could not use the built > in db layer. > > My point? In my opinion, web.py fulfills and stays true to it's mantra. > I rebuilt an enterprise application from the ground up in python in 10 > weeks, by simply "thinking about the ideal way to write it" then making it > happen. Every other tool I looked at was a barrier - web.py was an enabler. > > For me. Your mileage may vary. > > NSC > > P.S. As others have said... yes, I do agree when getting started the > documentation was kindof annoying. I think the community here would > deliver some great, practical tutorials if a wiki were started and opened > up for contribution. I'll write at least two. > > On Thursday, February 23, 2006 9:59:26 AM UTC-5, Aaron Swartz wrote: >> >> > Inventing yet another template language... >> >> You don't have to use it -- each part of web.py is completely separate >> from the others. But you're right, it is "yet another template >> language". And I'm not going to apologize for it. >> >> The goal of web.py is to build the ideal way to make web apps. If >> reinventing old things with only small differences were necessary to >> achieve this goal, I would defend reinventing them. The difference >> between the ideal way and the almost-ideal way is, as Mark Twain >> suggested, the difference between the lighting and the lightning bug. >> >> But these aren't just small differences. Instead of exposing Python >> objects, web.py allows you to build HTTP responses. Instead of trying >> to make the database look like an object, web.py makes the database >> easier to use. And instead of coming up with yet another way to write >> HTML, the web.py template system tries to bring Python into HTML. Not >> many other people are really trying to do that. >> >> You can disagree that these ways are better and say why. But simply >> criticizing them for being different is a waste of time. Yes, they are >> different. That's the whole point. >> >>
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web.py" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/webpy/-/4KagvwIrt6wJ. 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/webpy?hl=en.
