Pros/Cons of Turbogears/Rails?

[Steve Holden]

Ray wrote:
> Paul Boddie wrote:
> 
>>>But at least in most developers' perception, it is (not necessarily in
>>>the absolute sense, but perhaps relative to Django or Turbogears).
>>>Mind, it doesn't even need to be true, we're talking of perception
>>>here.
>>
>>So actual maturity isn't important when using a technology: it's
>>"perceived maturity" that counts, right?
> 
> 
> Well depends on "counts" in what sense. Counts as in the managers up
> there perceive something as mature, despite proofs of the contrary,
> certainly "counts", because then we'll end up having to work with a
> probably immature technology (nothing about RoR here, I'm talking in
> general). Yet with more people using it, its actual maturity will
> inevitably rise as well, maybe eventually to a level near that of its
> perceived maturity.
> 
> "Counts" as in to us developers who are actually spending our lives
> doing this? Perhaps yes too. If you're well-versed in something that is
> widely perceived to be mature, you may find it easier to win bread for
> your family, even if you have a painful time using it.
> 
> 
>>Any continuation down that
>>particular path of reasoning surely leads you to the point where you
>>claim, in concert with the developers, that increasing levels of
>>inconvenience caused by gratuitous changes or broken documentation is
>>not caused by bugs or general immaturity but by "features". I guess
>>this is the definition of "opinionated software" that some people are
>>so excited about.
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Sadly, there are more Java guys who know about Ruby than Python,
>>>despite the fact that Python predates Ruby by quite a few years...
>>>(this must be that Bruce Tate dude's fault! )
>>
>>If you only listen to Bruce Tate et al, I imagine you could have the
>>above impression, but I'd be interested to see hard facts to back up
>>those assertions.
> 
> 
> Yeah, see, the thing is that Python is not lacking luminaries endorsing
> it either, e.g.: Eric Raymond and Bruce Eckel. But for some reason this
> "Python is good" meme is not that viral. I wonder why...
> 
> And, since when do hard facts matter anyway? I've met a number of
> people who've told me they'd program in Eiffel if they could. And hey,
> perhaps in its day Eiffel *was* the best OO language out there.
> Certainly it looked cleaner than C++! :)
> 
Also remember that there are still lots of Python users who keep the 
fact quiet because they regard it as a strategic advantage. They don't 
*want* Python usage to spread, or they'll lose their advantage.

regards
  Steve
-- 
Steve Holden       +44 150 684 7255  +1 800 494 3119
Holden Web LLC/Ltd          http://www.holdenweb.com
Skype: holdenweb       http://holdenweb.blogspot.com
Recent Ramblings     http://del.icio.us/steve.holden