Yet another comparison of Python Web Frameworks

[Bruno Desthuilliers]

Michele Simionato a écrit :
> At work we are shopping for a Web framework, so I have been looking at
> the available options
> on the current market. In particular I have looked at Paste and Pylons
> and I have written my
> impressions here:
> 
> http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/python/yet-another-comparison-of-web-frameworks.html
> 
> I do not speak too well of Pylons, so if you thing I am wrong feel
> free to correct me here ;)
> 

Well... Last year, I had a look at Pylons, then played a bit with wsgi 
and building my own framework over it. I finally dropped that code and 
went back to Pylons, which I felt could become far better than my own 
efforts. Now since then I had way too much to do at work (using other 
technos) and didn't find the time to work on my own projects, so I still 
don't know how well Pylons will pass the "real world" test, but it seems 
to me that it's rapidly progressing and mostly in the right direction. I 
still wait for an opportunity to check this out !-)

While we're at it:

- talking about routes, you say:

"""
I have no Ruby On Rails background, so I don't see the advantages of routes.
"""

I don't have any RoR neither, but as far as I'm concerned, one of the 
big points with routes is url_for(), that avoids having too much 
hard-coded urls.

- about FormEncode : that's a package I've used before without Pylons, 
and while it has a few dark corners, it's mostly doing TheRightThing for 
most current validation/conversion tasks. I'll still use it with or 
without Pylons

- about SQLAlchemy : here again, I used this package prior any 
experience with Pylons. FWIW, I used it in the most basic, 'low-level' 
way, ie without any ORM stuff, and I found it to be a pretty good 
alternative to db-api. It's a bit complex, but powerful, and having the 
possibility to handle sql requests as Python objects (instead of raw 
strings) really helps.