On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 08:15 +0000, Tim Roberts wrote: > Ordinarily, I think the "do it yourself" nature of Python is a great thing, > and I would never try to dissuade someone from reinventing something > themselves. However, in the case of web frameworks, I believe Marc is > fundamentally correct: the web framework proliferation in Python is > actually doing the language a huge disservice.
I disagree. Even if most of the frameworks end up being nothing more than research artifacts, the fact is they embody research. Without research the Python web framework space will be forever relegated to runner-up (and probably has-been at some point). > Consider Ruby. If someone asks, "I'd like to do a web site with Ruby, what > should I use?", the answer comes back loud, clear, and unanimous: Ruby on > Rails. Or Wee. Or Nitro. Or Nemo. Or others that are surely to be written as Ruby gains acceptance and experienced users capable of writing them. > If someone asks, "I'd like to do a web site with Python, what > should I use?", she gets 25 different answers. "Look at HTMLGen, Cheetah, > WebWare, CherryPy, Karrigell, Django, Pylons, Plone, Zope, TurboGears, > etc., etc.", none of which are pre-installed in the typical Linux > distribution. To the non-programming decision maker, that kind of response > makes Python look unprofessional -- a toy. Ruby on Rails doesn't come preinstalled either. I don't think it's appropriate (and apparently most Linux distros currently agree) to install web programming frameworks by default. I will add that at least a few distros offer TurboGears, Django and Pylons as add-ons. > Now, please do not send me ugly emails accusing me of running down Python. > I've been a Python believer since 1.52. I've done web sites in at least 5 > of the frameworks, and I even wrote one of the wiki pages that compares web > frameworks. However, it is only the fact that I *AM* a true Python > believer that gave me the patience and incentive to try 5 different > frameworks. If a corporate decision maker were involved, that would never > happen. Python would simply fall off of the list of options, and the job > would get done in PHP or Ruby on Rails. Yes, because PHP has only one web framework too ;-) > I agree with Marc. PLEASE do not create "yet another Python web > framework." Let's pick one, and join together to turn it into the One, > True, Unquestioned Web Solution. Yes, and for those of us who may not like your choice, we can move to another language or write our own, so nothing will have changed. I think the entire concept that Ruby on Rails is successful because it happens to be the dominant solution on what was previously a practically unknown language is just plain ridiculous. If that's the case then why hasn't Eiffel taken over the world? Or Lua? Or Io? No, the reason Rails is successful is due to being a decent, focused product with *great* marketing (screencasts, anyone?). We've had several good Python web frameworks for some time, but practically zero marketing (except for Zope/Plone, which as it turns out, weren't such great products, at least not for the "80% solution" that Rails targets). Also the fact that Ruby doesn't suck isn't hurting Rails any either. If GvR wants to improve Python's status against Ruby, I suggest looking at what people are *really* raving about in the Ruby world (despite how they got there) and address those issues rather than getting sidetracked with this nonsense. Regards, Cliff -- -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
