I appreciate Eric having come here in peaceful terms. I *personally* think that Django is more suitable when a CMS is needed.
And web2py when and app is needed. Anyways, I think that web2py cannot be criticized by being different from django. Suppose it was similar to django ... then the criticism would be 'why waste time in building another framework similar to Django, with little userbase?.. baahh' On Jun 5, 3:51 am, Eric Florenzano <flo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 5, 1:09 am, weheh <richard_gor...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > Why wouldn't a web2py serve to handle a website on the order of > > youTube? Why couldn't an IBM handle their corporate intranet as well > > as their extranet with web2py? Is web2py missing something in > > particular? Is it missing something critical that can't be built? > > I only want to be constructive here...I really don't want to start a > flame war in this group. What I'll say that's hopefully not > controversial is that when you get to the scale of YouTube, you'll run > into situations where *every* framework will start to get in your way-- > usually in the data access layer. > > The good news is that most websites don't turn into YouTube in a > single day, and you have time to write that custom code as you need > to. > > Thanks, > Eric Florenzano --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py Web Framework" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
