Need a compelling argument to use Django instead of Rails

[Paul Boddie]

Ben Sizer wrote:
>
> Even C++ comes with OpenGL in the standard library.

Which standard library?

[...]

> Does PyQT play well with PyGame? And isn't it more of a windowing
> environment?

I'll have to let that question go, but I imagine the PyQt mailing list
would be able to provide some kind of answer:

http://mats.imk.fraunhofer.de/pipermail/pykde/

As for the nature of PyQt, it is a framework for developing
applications of various kinds, with the graphical user interface part
being the most interesting for most Python developers, I imagine. I
have read that the drawing and rendering support is rather powerful in
PyQt4, and I believe that various Qt-based visualisation solutions
exist.

[Web-SIG standardisation]

> This is something I wasn't incredibly happy about, as I felt it meant
> that personal egos were being saved at the expense of improving Python.

And some of the old frameworks whose APIs were so sacred have since
been replaced by a selection of new frameworks, each with their own
variation on what could easily be a common API. The original exercise
which led to the making WebStack was to investigate and document just
how each of the main frameworks differed; what I learned was that the
sacred "convenient" APIs of numerous frameworks were frequently
underdefined wrappers around parts of the cgi module that, despite
protests to the contrary, were more or less providing the same
functionality with varying amounts of subjective convenience.

(To an extent, WebStack doesn't expose certain functionality of the old
cgi module API completely, either, but with a dose of additional
motivation, I'd probably update the API to do certain things in a more
satisfactory way whilst preserving the improved semantics.)

> And I always thought that WSGI was solving the wrong problem. It
> certainly didn't go very far towards meeting the expressed goals of the
> Web-SIG. Oh well.
> <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web-sig/2004-August/000650.html>

There are some remarks just after that message about the SIG charter
needing to change or having become irrelevant, but in fact the need for
standard functionality is as relevant today as ever. At a slightly
higher level, everyone would now prefer that you buy into their total
"full stack" solution, perhaps with the exception of the Paste
developers whose selection of packages either suggest a problem of
internal framework proliferation or one of a lack of coherency in
presenting a suitable solution to the casual inquirer.

Given the amount of traffic the Web-SIG mailing list has been getting,
it's safe to say that while many would consider the job done, the
project has mostly failed in meeting its objectives.

Paul