On Oct 6, 7:15 am, Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Chase wrote:
> > Any respectable comparison of Python web frameworks should
> > include evaluation of at least Django and TG. Or at least give
> > good reason why the comparison excludes them.
Mine is not a respectable comparison of Web frameworks, it is
NOT intended to be so. It is just a set of notes I kept for
myself and that may be or may be not of interest to others.
> When he said that he didn't want anything complex neither anything that used
> a templating system, I thought this had already excluded a lot of
> frameworks, including TG and Django.
This is clearly not true, since I could use these frameworks
without using their templates if I wanted. It would be very
stupid to dismiss an entire framework only because I dislike
its templates.
> > Zope is also missing, but I'm not sure Zope qualifies so much as
> > a framework, but as an answer to the question "If Emacs were a
> > Python web environment, what would it look like?"
>
> He already had dislikings with Plone that weren't clear, maybe a lot of
> those are Zope related...
>
> I agree, though, that more time could be spent explaining "why" things were
> discarded / ignored.
Look, there are already tons of pages on the net ranting against
Zope, my complaints are quite common and I have no interest
in repeating what has been already said. For instance, if you
Google a bit you should find the rants of the Quixote people
against Zope. I share their position.
I did not talk about TG because I see it as being very close to
Pylons and everybody is saying they will be unified in the near
future, so it would be a waste of effort to discuss TG per se.
Michele Simionato
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
