Apologies if this discussion was in the works. I'm a bit late to the
game on the subject and given the current debate over the logo I
thought it would be a decent time to interject my comments on Pylons
branding. I'm not saying much that's new, just many of the same old
things with a slight twist:
Hi Tim,
> Maybe it's the attitude? Turn the perceived inaccessibility to Pylons'
> advantage and appeal more directly to the hardcore crowd. Give it a
> more rugged image and a bit of a bite. Use a tag line like "heavy-duty
> rapid web development," "a powerful, customizable web framework," or
> "
On 6/5/07, James Gardner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > do it without the cruft of Java, the chaos of PHP,
"chaos of PHP", that's a good description.
> > 1.b. A second generation modern web frameworks, building on ideas from
> > Rails, Django, etc, and learning from their flaws
> > 2. Designed f
On Jun 5, 9:17 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> So saying Pylons
> is more advanced because it has Routes will probably sound lame by the
> time Pylons 1.0 comes out.
I think this point plus the rather intricate evolutionary path
outlined by Mike is a good argument against basing
Glad to hear my thinking lines up with the general consensus... A lot
of frameworks try to market themselves in the same terms as Rails
(speed of development, code "elegance") and fail to really
differentiate themselves as a result, in my opinion. It's time to
start moving into more enterprise-ori
Just to expand upon my last point a bit, here's a quote from an
introduction I wrote:
"Pylons provides a sane environment for setting up, configuring,
developing, and deploying WSGI-based web applications and it brings
structure to the HTTP request life cycle. It also gives you the tools
to keep
On 6/5/07, ToddG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Also in observing the thoughts of many others on Pylons overall, and
> my own experiences with it I'm wondering -- though I'm reluctant to
> bring up this debate -- if it's more of a toolkit than a framework.
> Semantics yes, but this seems to better d
On Jun 6, 1:01 am, "Mike Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought a bit about this, but it really is a framework. A
> toolkit/library is something you call. A framework is something that
> calls you. Given that it's the outer part of web applications that is
Yeah I thought the same after po
