Are Django/Turbogears too specific?

[Philip Semanchuk]

On Dec 21, 2008, at 3:14 PM, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:

> Philip Semanchuk a écrit :
> (snip)
>> From the reading I did, I gathered that Django was really good if  
>> you want to do what Django is good at, but not as easy to customize  
>> as, say, Pylons.
>
> That was my first impression too, and was more or less true some  
> years ago. After more experience, having gained a deeper knowledge  
> of Django's internals, I can tell you this is just not true. You can  
> "customize" it as you want - meaning: you can use any ORM (or no ORM  
> at all) and any template language you want, as long as you don't  
> intend to use django's ORM and template language related features  
> (which just don't exist in Pylons). IOW : Django is just as flexible  
> as Pylons (or pretty close to), but has more to offer if you stick  
> to builtin components.

Based on what I read, I got the idea that Django *can* be as flexible  
as Pylons, but most people find it *easier* to take advantage of  
Pylons' flexibility. In other words, no one is saying Django is  
incapable, but that it is less focused on making it easy to allow  
developers to mix & match components and more focused on providing a  
smooth tool with which to work.

> NB : not to dismiss Pylons, which is a pretty great framework too,  
> and use IMHO better default components (namely SQLAlchemy and Mako).

I prefer Mako over the other template languages I've seen.