Let me say right off the bat that I've taken a brief look through the code and documentation and found that I wouldn't mind trying it out for personal projects. So, the intention here is not to slag the framework.
> Performance and effectivity are related metrics. Longer feature list can not > explain why it less effective. An answer to effectivity question might be > related to: > - code quality (we have PEP8) Any static code analysis such as pylint or pyflakes? > - architectural decisions taken What (sample of) decisions? How do they differ from other frameworks? How will they make my life better? > - core team experience Not sure this is entirely relevant (imho). Engineers with great experience on paper may still make poor decisions and output shoddy work. Conversely, a new grad (or weekend hacker) may have a solid understanding and output amazing work. > - historical path, etc. What does this mean? > There is a problem with 3rd party code... it should evolve with framework... > so good one become a part of it. 3rd party UI things are good, until you > start `customize` them, patch, workaround, etc. This is where pain come from. > However, there are exceptions. Can you name few? [Disclaimer: personal opinion] I couldn't disagree more. A good framework provides the glue for various subsystems to work amazingly well together. Perhaps this is why I'm drawn to micro-frameworks and the likes of Pyramid. No assumptions are made about *how* I'm going to use the framework. Modularity is good. Do one thing and do it *very* well. Caching? Use beaker. ORM? Use SQLAlchemy. > Let me state this: "wheezy.web let you design web application to be able run > it at the speed of `hello world`, even database driven one". This bothers me. It's misleading to newbies and it's just wrong. You simply *cannot* have a database driven application run at the exact same performance as a "hello world" app. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
