django vs zope vs web2py

[Alok Singh Mahor]

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Modulok <modulok at gmail.com> wrote:

> > Hi everyone,
> > few months back I decided to adopt python for my all sort of work
> including
> > web programming...
> > --
> > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
> >
>
> Pick Django or web2py. You'll be happy with either. (I have no experience
> with
> zope.)
>
> They're both full featured do-everything-you-ever-wanted frameworks with
> great
> communities and lots of documentation. You can buy books on either. I'd say
> web2py is a little more elegant and easier to get started with. (An
> admittedly
> subjective claim.) Django has a little larger community and has more third
> party stuff.
>
> If you just need to "get it done" and don't care about how it happens,
> they're
> both excellent. You'll meet deadlines with either of them. The communities
> are
> smart the docs are great. You can't really go wrong any way you slice it.
> There's more third party documentation and books for Django right now but
> that's just because Django came out first. Give it another couple years and
> there won't be much difference.
>
> Basically, flip a coin and just go with it.
>
>
>
> And now for the gritty details approach...
>
> The problem with web frameworks is they are "magic", i.e. things just
> happen.
> It's the price we pay for using a high level abstraction. The higher the
> abstraction the more magic there is. Often times magic is good. It saves us
> time and money. However depending on your needs, other options are worth
> considering.
>
> If you are willing to invest a lot of time not being initially productive
> but
> learn a *ton* in exchange, you can use something like cherrypy. (Don't get
> me
> wrong, I love and often use cherrypy.) It's dirt simple and works. However,
> because it's so simple it doesn't do half of what you need for a
> non-trivial
> production site. Result? You'll have to fill in the tool chain gaps with
> other
> modules. This is what web frameworks do for you.
>
> If you go the cherrypy route you'll need to learn other things like like
> markup
> languages and some kind of way to talk to a database. Security is also
> entirely
> in your hands. You'll learn a ton about HTTP, SQL, markup languages, web
> security, encryption, etc. You'll be basically re-creating a web framework
> of
> your own brand. Again it's a time spent vs. knowledge gained trade off.
>
> For a template language I really liked wheezy.template but it's a little
> too
> new for me to feel comfortable using it on any big project. It has a very
> simple inheritance model, which is refreshing. I hope to use it more in the
> future.
>
> I usually use Mako for my templates. By 'template' I mean any template, not
> just HTML. I use mako for HTML, documentation, I even use mako to write SQL
> templates. The inheritance model of Mako takes a little more mental
> gymnastics
> to wrap your head around than the simpler (read nicer) wheezy.template
> model,
> but it's a more mature code base. (Not as mature as cheetah.) I had only
> minor
> experience with cheetah but found I preferred Mako. It was a matter of
> taste.
> There's nothing wrong with cheetah.
>
> As for database access: sqlalchemy is truly excellent and very flexible.
> For
> most things sqlalchemy is great. However for some projects it may contain
> too
> much magic. (Again we're going deeper.) Sometimes a backend-specific
> module is
> called for, in which case psycopg2 on postgresql is nice. The ability to
> use
> python context managers as transaction blocks is very clean.
>
> In short, how much do you want to learn? Do you prefer a top-down or
> bottom-up
> approach? Gritty details or elegant abstractions?
>
> -Modulok-
>
thanks a lot Rusi, Roy Smith, Surya and Modulok
I am sticking to django. In future I will touch web2py also
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/attachments/20130421/178e1ce8/attachment.html>