This email should be in web2py's site. These concepts and ideias need to me more explicity than implicity! ;-) I think we also need to include that web2py is not only a web framework that we import tools and use: web2py, really, create Python code for us (yes! And because of it we don't need to use imports on controllers, for example). I think web2py can't be compared directly to other web frameworks because they are simply a lot of tools that you import and use, web2py have these tools but it is a bit more.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 20:28, mdipierro <mdipie...@cs.depaul.edu> wrote: > > Once in a while I get questions about license (why not BSD?) or future > (why not change it and break backward compatibility? why not move to > python3). > > Well. There are many frameworks that do that. I wrote web2py because I > do not like it. > > Web2py was not designed to please web2py contributors (sorry). Web2py > was designed to please the users and make sure their code does not > break as we evolve web2py. This allows us to guarantee them backward > compatibility and allows them to be sure they can invest in web2py > long term. > > **This is its strongest selling point. This is what we should > emphasize and make clear to our friends.** > > This does not mean we will not keep improving web2py. We have been > doing it constantly. > > This does not mean that there cannot be forks that take a different > direction. Although those forks cannot be called web2py in order to > avoid confusion to users. > > This does not mean there is life after web2py. There will be something > and we'll learn from our mistakes but whatever follow web2py has to be > drastically different for me to have an interest in it. > > This does not mean that web2py is perfect as it is. What is perfect > anyway? It is subjective. (This reminds me of that housewife that > keeps rearranging the kitchen. Is there a better arrangement than the > one the other family members have already learned and allows them to > find utensils quickly without thinking?) > > This does mean that we, developers and contributors, may sometime have > have to put extra work to fit new features into the existing design. I > say may because I do not think it was a problem so far. > > This does not mean that we cannot rearrange the code internally. I am > open to experimentation. > > This does not mean that we cannot create new programming paradigms > (for example new widgets that contain validators) as long as existing > syntax continues to be supported. > > This does not mean that we cannot use other repositories for web2py > code although I think we agreed some time ago to move to mercurial + > google code. I am still leaning that way since launchpad is too slow. > I apologize for the delays but the book took precedence. > > My main job here is to make sure that patches do not break existing > code and conform to the web2py spirit. > > This is not negotiable. > > > Some people have criticized the current exec in environment where some > modules are already imported. They say it is not Pythonic. I do not > care. That is one of the main distinct features of web2py: > do_no_repeat_yourself in web2py takes precedence over > explicit_is_better than implicit. This is what makes Rails still more > popular than Django. web2py moves one step further than Rails by > giving more things an implicit default, including views. I do not > think this is a weakness. This is another selling point. Moreover the > current design has been developed to avoid conflicts between apps that > need different versions of the same libraries or libraries that have > name conflicts. Without it the imports would become depend on the > order of items in pythonpath and the order of execution of apps. This > is a big can of worms that we do not have to deal with. Currently you > can import an app in web2py written by somebody else with its own > modules and you do not need to worry about conflicts. > > Some of the critiques have come from members of the python community > who have a vision about what a web framework should be: it should be > more like Pylons or more like Django or more like Cherrypy or more > like one of the other web frameworks. I respect their vision and I am > not asking them to use web2py nor to contribute to it. I take a more > pragmatic approach. My ideal web framework is one that makes life > easier to those who want to learn it for the first time and, secondly, > to those who use it at a professional level. If this means breaking > some programming paradigms that are considered standard in the python > community then be it, as long as we conform to good security and > software engineering standards. I do not agree with everything the > python community does. In particular I do not think that Python 3 was > a very good idea. I do not think the changes were significant enough > to justify breaking every existing python program out there. > > What makes me happy is that people who have actually tried web2py seem > to like it. > > Massimo > -- Álvaro Justen Peta5 - Telecomunicações e Software Livre 21 3021-6001 / 9898-0141 http://www.peta5.com.br/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To post to this group, send email to web2py@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/web2py?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
