As I read in another post on this thread, do some initial scoping out of either framework and pick the one that seems to suit your way of thinking/coding the best. If you scan over some sample code on the projects' websites you should get a basic idea of what they will be like.
Although a bit more obscure than the two frameworks you are considering, have you checked out Seaside (http://seaside.st)? It's a Smalltalk framework that interests me personally. I've had the opportunity to check it out briefly, but haven't had a chance to actually mock up an app using it. If you check it out as well as a neat AJAX library that can overlay it called Scriptaculous (http://script.aculo.us) you can do some pretty slick things concisely. I doubt that something like this will immediately skyrocket to the top of the commercial developer's hit list, but it is something that I would play around with since it will only expand my knowledge base. And I can have fun while doing it :-) Out of what I've seen working with Rails and checking out TurboGears I chose Rails since it fit in with my way of thinking the best. Everyone has their own taste so I wouldn't take any one person's (or one group's) opinion. Read up on them a bit and see which one looks the most interesting to you. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > First, I don't intend this to be a flame war, please. Python > and Ruby are the only two languages I'd willingly work in > (at least amongst common languages), and TurboGears and > Rails seem roughly equivalent. > > I'm much more knowledgable about Python, but that's a minor > issue--I've been intending to learn more Ruby anyway. > > Here are the pros and cons that I'm aware of and consider > important: > > Turbogears: > + SqlObject allows working with the DB tables without > using SQL itself. > + Likely to be faster because as far as I'm aware, Python > is significantly faster. > + Easy access to other libraries (such as the Python > Imaging Library) that Ruby, being a relatively newer > language, doesn't have equivalents to. > + Built-in default SQLite makes it easier to set up? > (as far as I can tell, Ruby requires MySql by default--don't > know how easy this is to change.) > + I find the templating system somewhat cleaner; code in > py: xml namespace allows pure .html templates, instead > of equivalent of .rhtml files. > > Ruby: > + More mature system. More stable? More features? > + Much better documented. This is a biggie. > + Built-in Rubydoc system would make documenting the > system easier. (IMHO, developers almost always > underestimate the need for good documentation that > is written along withe the system.) Is there a > Python doc system that has received Guido's blessing > yet? D'oxygen would seem an obvious choice. > + Better coordination with Javascript helper code? > > I was initially leaning towards Rails due to maturity, > but the most recent version of TurboGears seem to have > fixed a lot of the "ad hoc" feeling I got from previous > versions. But I'm still very much up in the air. > > Thanks, > Ken > > P.S. If I wanted to provide an image by streaming the > file data directly over the connection, rather than by > referring to an image file, how would I do that? I'd > like to build code that would allow images to be assembled > into a single-file photo album (zip or bsddb file), and > so can't refer to them as individual image files. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
