I strongly agree with you about sqlalchemy being the gateway drug to pylons. I was just looking for an ORM at the time, and sqlalchemy stands out as the one to try when you are doing that search. Shortly afterwards, while I wasn't looing, it just sort of walked me over to Pylons.
-- Will On Aug 21, 9:48 pm, Didip Kerabat <[email protected]> wrote: > From my experience both are not ridiculously hard to deploy. Even > though pylons have more options. It's a hard sell on that one, i > think. On the other hand, isn't django having problem with wsgi? > > Also, sqlalchemy has far more value to me than django orm. Can we > highlight the fact that it is easy to get up to speed in web dev using > sqlalchemy? > > We can also appeal to front end devs, the same way rails does. Django > opinion towards designer hurts them, imo. We should highlight the fact > that mako is powerful, easy to use, and doesn't assume that designers > are stupid. > > My 20 cents, > > Didip > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 4:42 PM, Wyatt Baldwin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Aug 21, 3:35 pm, mickgardner <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ... > >> I think one clear advantage that pylons is easily deployed, far above > >> Django or other python based apps.. > > > Just to make sure I understand... are you saying Pylons apps are much > > easier to deploy compared to Django apps? Or are you saying that they > > *should* be? I agree with the latter but not the former. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. 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/pylons-discuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
