I like Django. Its wide adoption, great docs and included batteries make it an easy sell.
But what your describing is more like a pylons, aka if you dont want an orm in Pylons, don't include it. On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Matthew Dennis <mden...@merfer.net> wrote: > +1 for pylons, I've been quite happy with it so far - lightweight, very > flexible, loosely coupled components... > > On Apr 9, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Gary Dusbabek <gdusba...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I like pylons. Easy templating and relatively light weight. In my >> experience, it was easier to get something working in pylons than >> django, but I am impatient. >> >> Gary. >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 09:55, Pablo Cuadrado <pablocuadr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi! >>> >>> I made a proposal about building a Cassandra Web UI. One of it's main >>> components, will be Python on the server side. >>> >>> However, as Gary D. pointed out, it will be interesting to get your >>> opinions on which framework to use. >>> >>> I suggested Django for being well-known and largely documented, but >>> any other would do. >>> >>> As far as my experience goes on web development, this is what I -IMHO- >>> think of any web framework, despite the language: >>> >>> - Really small footprint is a plus: "do we really need to include >>> that, and that, and that other thing?" >>> - Flexibility and freedom of code, another plus: "do I really need to >>> inherit that class to do that" >>> - Unneeded features tend to get in our way: like the "auto admin" >>> panels of Django. Or the "FormAlchemy" and "SQLAlchemy" features in >>> Pylons. >>> - Templating features should be truly flexible, and do fast template >>> parsing. >>> >>> Well, suggestions are needed! I would like to know your opinions on >>> Django, Pylons, web2py, TurboGears, etc. >>> >>> Regards! >>> > -- Dan Di Spaltro
