t;> A lot of the magic that Django brings to the table is derived from the
>>> ORM. If you're skipping that then Pylons likely makes more sense.
>>>
>>> --Joe
>>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Charles Woerner
>>> wrote:
>>>
>&
re sense.
>>
>> --Joe
>>
>> On Jun 20, 2010, at 5:08 PM, Charles Woerner
>> wrote:
>>
>> I recently looked into this and came to the same conclusion, but I'm not
>> an expert in either Django or Pylons so I'd also be interested in hearing
at 5:08 PM, Charles Woerner
> wrote:
>
> I recently looked into this and came to the same conclusion, but I'm not an
> expert in either Django or Pylons so I'd also be interested in hearing what
> someone with more Python experience would say.
>
> On Sun, Jun 20
expert in either Django or Pylons so I'd also be interested in hearing what
> someone with more Python experience would say.
>
> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM, S Ahmed wrote:
> Seeing as I will be using a different ORM, would it make more sense to use
> pylons over django?
I recently looked into this and came to the same conclusion, but I'm not an
expert in either Django or Pylons so I'd also be interested in hearing what
someone with more Python experience would say.
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:42 PM, S Ahmed wrote:
> Seeing as I will be using a
Seeing as I will be using a different ORM, would it make more sense to use
pylons over django?
>From what I understand, pylons assumes less as compared to django.
