On Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 1:23:05 AM UTC+5:30, Eric S. Johansson wrote: > On 11/2/2016 2:40 PM, Chris Warrick wrote: > > Because, as the old saying goes, any sufficiently complicated Bottle > > or Flask app contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, > > slow implementation of half of Django. (In the form of various plugins > > to do databases, accounts, admin panels etc.) > > That's not a special attribute of bottle, flask or Django. Ad hoc, > informally specified, bug ridden slow implementations abound. We focus > too much on scaling up and not enough on scaling down. We (designers) > also have not properly addressed configuration complexity issues.
This scaling up vs down idea is an important one. Related to Buchberger’s blackbox whitebox principle > > If I'm going do something once, if it cost me more than a couple of > hours to figure it out, it's too expensive in general but definitely if > I forget what I learned. That's why bottle/flask systems meet and need. > They're not too expensive to forget what you learned. > > Django makes the cost of forgetting extremely expensive. I think of > using Django as career rather than a toolbox. Thats snide... and probably accurate ;-) Among my more unpleasant programming experiences was Ruby-on-Rails And my impression is that Ruby is fine; Rails not Django I dont know and my impression is its a shade better than Rails It would be nice to discover the bottle inside the flask inside django Put differently: Frameworks are full-featured and horrible to use APIs are elegant but ultimately underpowered DSLs (eg requests) are in intermediate sweetspot; we need more DSL-families -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
