I agree too. If Django supported sqlalchemy as well as it does it's own ORM I would likely be using it. But it seems like the price of all the cool stuff Django offers is living with their ORM. I don't know how this spins in favor of pylons though. It seems to me that TG should be more concerned with keeping up/competing with the Jone's.
Pylons to me almost seems like Spring for the Web. My understanding of Spring is very light but it seems to me that the goal of loose coupling, or rather, as much coupling as YOU deem necessary is it's strength. Maybe Paste is responsible for that and Pylons is an MVC framework built on top of that? http://static.springsource.org/spring/docs/2.0.x/reference/mvc.html Just thinking out loud...... On Aug 22, 2:21 pm, john smallberries <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
