Are Django/Turbogears too specific?
philip at semanchuk.com
Sun Dec 21 22:27:25 CET 2008
On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Philip Semanchuk a écrit :
>> From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if
>> you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize
>> as, say, Pylons.
> That was my first impression too, and was more or less true some
> years ago. After more experience, having gained a deeper knowledge
> of Django's internals, I can tell you this is just not true. You can
> "customize" it as you want - meaning: you can use any ORM (or no ORM
> at all) and any template language you want, as long as you don't
> intend to use django's ORM and template language related features
> (which just don't exist in Pylons). IOW : Django is just as flexible
> as Pylons (or pretty close to), but has more to offer if you stick
> to builtin components.
Based on what I read, I got the idea that Django *can* be as flexible
as Pylons, but most people find it *easier* to take advantage of
Pylons' flexibility. In other words, no one is saying Django is
incapable, but that it is less focused on making it easy to allow
developers to mix & match components and more focused on providing a
smooth tool with which to work.
> NB : not to dismiss Pylons, which is a pretty great framework too,
> and use IMHO better default components (namely SQLAlchemy and Mako).
I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen.
More information about the Python-list