On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 03:15:19PM -0700, Ben Bangert wrote: > On Jun 1, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Mike Orr wrote: > > The introduction can be improved, certainly. I wasn't here when > > Pylons was started or the website was created, but my sense is that > > Pylons has evolved since then. Its first adherents were looking for > > *any* framework that was Paste-ified (and thus WSGI-ified) from the > > ground up, and Pylons was it. Now we're getting more Pythoneers who > > want "something more modular than Turbogears", non-Pythoneers who want > > "something like Rails", newbies who want "something easy to code, > > scalable, performant, and stable". The trick is to address all these > > audiences. If we focus totally on newbies, that leaves everybody else > > cold. Plus we need to focus on building 1.0 right now, not on > > bringing in hordes of newbies Because... > > We definitely need new copy for the website introduction and > overview. Any volunteers?
I'm currently extending my "concepts of pylons" article into a longer (actually it looks like it's getting longer than I expected) introduction. It's still beta but I tried to sum up the advantages and fun features about Pylons in http://workaround.org/pylons/beginning-pylons.html#what-makes-pylons-stand-out-from-other-frameworks Perhaps some of these points should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph on the hq site. At least those are the points that make using Pylons fun for me. Christoph --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-discuss@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
