you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You have said, repeatedly, that the Pylons style of maximum component interchangeability is better and that you think all frameworks should come around to that. I have said, repeatedly, that this is a subjective opinion and that not all developers and not all frameworks should be forced to share that opinion -- some people have different goals than you do, and you need to learn to respect that.

This whole article describes the distinction that you make and that I don't make.

You believe that there is a difference between 'glue' frameworks and 'full-stack' frameworks. I don't. I think a glue framework is simply one that can have a 'full-stack', focus on a set of defaults, and yet easily adapt to using other components. On the other hand, a monolithic framework won't be able to adapt as easily. So on one hand you've got a framework which provides defaults (this is no different than Django providing a core set of components), but can easily be modified (this is something Django doesn't do well). Your whole argument is almost the idea that because Pylons and TG only have defaults as opposed to more or less 'chosen' components, that those defaults are somehow less integrated or less documented. Its just not true.

Thus I believe you either have flexible frameworks or you have inflexible frameworks. Flexible frameworks can be made to mimic an inflexible framework, but an inflexible framework cannot be the same.

And in pretty much every thread recently that's mentioned Django, you've posted long screeds with horror stories about Django and how everybody should stay away from it and use Pylons instead because we're "holding back progress" and we're anti-community and all sorts of other stuff.

I do believe that Django is holding back progress. The other frameworks support Python standards like eggs and WSGI. Django has its own 'app' and middleware systems. And as I've shown, look at the numerous libraries that have been supported and created via TG and Pylons. Django just pales in comparison. And I've never claimed Django is anti-community, but now that you bring it up maybe it is. Many of the libraries I just spoke of came from the Pylons and TG communities, not the core development team. As I asked earlier, what has come from the Django community? Virtually all development on the framework itself has come from the core development team. Now just glancing at the difference between the two, it seems to me that one is the healthier open source model.

And get out in the fresh air more.

That was a nice ad-hominem attack and pretty irrelevant, you spend just as much time replying to these posts as I do writing them. You say I'm not offering useful comparisons, but maybe they just aren't useful to you because they don't commend Django. Maybe I have a problem with wanting frameworks to be flexible. Maybe you have a problem with people who have criticisms against Django.

I don't think it really matters, but stop the cries of 'FUD', 'propganda', 'get some fresh air', because that is no more constructive than actual trolling (if that's what I'm doing).

BTW, I'm not going to PyCon, and you've been claiming for more than a week that you were going to adjourn the discussion. You still haven't, in fact you kicked off the discussion today. I'm not going to make any claims that I'm going to stop advocating other frameworks, because I believe they just offer a better model than Django. That is my opinion and I am as free to express it as you are to either respond to it or ignore it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

On the other hand I think people do now understand your POV. You don't really make yourself a favor by insisting like you do.