On Dec 11, 2:04 pm, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > One thing I appreciate a lot these days is the DAL instead of ORM. > > This is because I am working on a system with models derived > automatically form some documentation and change rapidly as I progress > in the documentation. It is very easy to parse text files, extract > relations and build models dynamically with the DAL. T3 on GAE even > stores models themselves in the database. With an ORM it would much > more cumbersome.
I would generally agree, and find the same: in fact, with default views, and form generation, most of MVC is about describing the important persistent data, and making a basic functionality (controller action) to handle something. In the object-relational world, an object IS (in essence) a combination of behavior (methods) and data (accessors for all practical purposes). What an object would provide is a binding and enforcement of data to responsible actor (method) --- but in sorting out what an object should be, the controller / ORM provides a really nice, rapid prototyping environ. Rather than an ORM, in a more complex system, or to enforce a discipline of encapsulation, a controller could by convention NEVER access a table directly, but always through an object responsible for a table (in fact, table definition could be wrapped in a base object in the model area, and controller objects inherit the base, data- defining object). Where an orm is an easy way for connecting an object-designed system, and avoid rewriting data into sql-specifics, this - in the MVC space - is a very nice concept which starts prototyping FROM the persistent data space to begin with, and does not in any way keep a system from taking good advantage of object encapsulation when system complexity (or design) warrants. - Yarko > > Massimo > > On Dec 11, 12:23 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > > > > Summary: > > > web2py: > > simple, concise forms > > python as a templating language > > true model controller view cycle > > friendly table definitions > > sql-like query functions > > automatic-migrations > > ...so much more > > > django: > > database hooks > > > The details: > > > Django makes no logical sense... at least to an anal programmer like me :) > > > web2py makes things simple. I can accomplish the same thing, in less > > lines of code, and in a more logical sense with web2py. Just take > > SQLFORM for example. It's simple. It's logical. It works, especially > > SQLFORM.factory. Django introduces a lot of spaghetti code by design. > > I have yet to see a django form that was actually useful that wasn't > > spread across a few different files. (forms.py, views.py, etc...) > > > Every time I go to write a django app, it seems I cannot create a > > single view without having to define my own custom templatetag to do > > what I want to accomplish. This is where web2py excels in having > > python as its templating language. > > > The main problem I have against django is the mindset of its design. > > In my opinion, its logically backwards, its archaic, its spaghetti > > string. This comes from the design being centred around the newsroom. > > Django (in my opinion) breaks logical engineering standards. MCV > > (web2py) vs MVT (django). Not that this effects how django performs, > > but it hurts my brain. Web2py, doesn't hurt my brain. > > > I also hate hate hate hate the way django defines models and queries. > > Again it just seems like, it's trying too hard. I love in web2py that > > you just define your fields, and in one string say what type it is, > > and have that translated to your database. Also, queries, what is > > django thinking? Why does the query have to be hidden behind an > > archaic ill-logical double underscore syntax? I love that web2py's > > queries are close to SQL, those SQL classes I took in college actually > > mean something. Django queries, by design, make you think as a > > non-programmer. Lastly, you can't beat automatic migrations during > > development. > > > That being said, there are things about django that I like, things > > that one day I hope start inching their way into web2py. I would like > > to have database hooks, something that was more behind the scenes that > > .accepts(onvalidation=...).... actually that's about the only thing I > > can think of django having that I wish web2py had. > > > I know that many would disagree with me, especially those who use > > django. It's just my opinion, and opinions are like butt holes, we all > > have them, and they all stink. I do not want to start a flamewar > > (which is why I kept it to a one liner in the first post), I am just > > answering Yarkos question. > > > -Thadeus > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Yarko Tymciurak > > > <resultsinsoftw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > can you be more specific? What do you like more when you compare? > > > > On Dec 10, 10:20 pm, Thadeus Burgess <thade...@thadeusb.com> wrote: > > >> Everytime I look at a django app... it makes me so grateful for web2py :) > > > >> -Thadeus > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > > "web2py-users" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to web...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group > > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web...@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.
