flebber a écrit : (snip)
In short it seems to me that Django and Web2py include more "magic" in assisting oneself to create you web/application, whilst Pylons and Werkzueg leave more control in the users hands hopefully leading to greater expression and power.
I can't tell much about web2py - never used it. wrt/ Django, there's not that much "magic" involved - Django's ORM is not "more magic" than SQLAlchemy, Django templates are by no mean "more magic" than Mako or Genshi (and probably way simpler to understand than Mako). And FWIW, Jinja started as a standalone rewrite of Django templates.
The main difference between Django and Pylons is that Django is highly 'integrated' - all parts were designed by the same team, and were designed to work together - while Pylons is very loose - it's mainly an "assembly" of 3rd part components, most of them swappable, with some glue code to make the whole thing work. Very different philosophies.
Having serious working knowledge of Django, I don't buy the "Pylons gives you more control" stuff - you have as much "control" with Django, the only point is that you'll obviously loose some hi-level features when using "non-standard" components. Pylons just don't have these features OOTB.
Pylons recommends SQLALchemy and Mako (offers Genshi and Jinja2) and Werkzueg SQLAlchemy and Jinja2. As I don't have the experience to tell the pro's cons of these two apart, would choosing Pylons based on Documentation be a fair call?
If you know right from the start you won't need Django's hi-level features, and/or that the level of integration it offers will be more of a nuisance than help for your project, then go for Pylons/SQLAlchemy/Mako. It's probably one of the most powerful combo - while not the easiest to get started with.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
