<talking about programming in the large and in the small> Well, let me specialize my sentence
> CherryPy and Quixote are for programming in the small in > CherryPy and Quixote are good for programming in the small meaning that these frameworks help you when programming in the small. This statement does NOT imply that they get in your way when you program in the large. I just lack the experience in programming in the large with CherryPy and/or Quixote. Also, let me specify what I mean by "programming in the large": if a single person can grasp the application, and the application can be implemented by a single team, then you are programming in the small. You are programming in the large only when you have many independent team of developers and you have coordination problems. In this situation a component architecture is supposed to help (and maybe it does, I lack the field experience to give an opinion), whereas when working in the small a component architecture can just get in your way. It is easy to evaluate a framework in the small: it is enough to ask to self the question "how much time did it take to me to write my first Web site in that framework starting from zero?". OTOH, to evaluate a framework for programming in the large takes years of experience and practice, and I will not hazard any opinion ;) Still, I believe it is possible to have a frameworks which is scalable both in the small and in the large. Look for instance at the programming language spectrum: Java was intended to program in the large and it is pretty bad when programming in the small; Perl, on the other hand, was meant to program in the small and does not scale at all in the large. However, Python works equally well both in the large and in the small. So, I think there is no contraddiction between large and small, in theory. But in practice there is, so I use Zope at work and Quixote at home ;) Michele Simionato -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list