[Web-SIG] Re: Just lost another one to Rails

[michael bayer]

my own project, Myghty, is modeled after Perl's HTML::Mason, which in  
turn is a lot like PHP with regards to "just plug it in and start  
writing pages".  it does foster a more compentized design than PHP and  
also integrates nicely into whatever  MVC framework the developer  
chooses.  Myghty also includes a rudimentary MVC framework paradigm  
built into it,  but its completely optional; you can use whatever  
architecture you want and just use the python server pages aspect of  
the engine.

the whole idea with Myghty is that theres a lot of options for how it  
can be used, it wont let you down when the site gets big, and also its  
as "out of the box" as it gets; just untar the dist, and it includes a  
demo server that runs right out of the distribution directory so you  
can see it run, browse the docs and source code, and start playing with  
your own pages without even installing it.   Basing it off of  
HTML::Mason was because i think the Mason development model is  
extremely productive, having used it for several years, after lots of  
experience with both JSP/servlet and ASP models which I feel are less  
productive.  a lot of other people agree too; its the most popular web  
framework for Perl, OReilly book and everything.

unfortunately I did Myghty a disservice by not showing up to hawk it at  
Pycon.  as its deriviate of something from the perl world, i would  
never expect it to become the "de-facto" python tool; but then also, i  
think the python web framework world should remain open to various  
architectures coexisting.


On Apr 9, 2005, at 11:20 AM, Peter Hunt wrote:

>  Ruby on Rails, ColdFusion, ASP.NET, and to a lesser degree PHP and  
> ASP share two important traits that no Python web framework currently  
> embraces.
>
>
>
>  First, when one writes an application for these frameworks, one  
> spends the vast majority of time writing code for their application,  
> writing the logic that their application specifically requires.  
> Contrast this with J2EE or Zope. In writing a Zope 3 application, for  
> example, one must design objects that fit the Zope interface  
> requirements, write a couple of XML configuration files to document  
> the object, and figure out the entire API all at once. Contrast this  
> to PHP, where one spends time simply writing what their application  
> needs to do, and does not need to write a single ambiguous XML  
> configuration file. This extends to deployment. In a J2EE application,  
> you need to deploy a WAR, while with PHP, you just need to drop a few  
> .php files on the server and it works.
>
>
>
>  Second, these frameworks have "batteries included". Rails is a  
> "full-stack" framework, which, according to its API documentation,  
> "includes everything needed to create database-backed web-applications  
> according to the Model-View-Control pattern of separation." It handles  
> everything from form validation to database integration to sending  
> email. No Python framework currently embodies such functionality with  
> such good integration.
>
>
>
>  I really want to be able to say that we should all come together to  
> improve Zope, the "king" of Python web frameworks . . . but I can't  
> say that. Zope 2 was a mess, and Zope 3 is so overengineered that it's  
> painful to write code. The ideal framework should allow the programmer  
> to be organized, while still allowing a monkey to write Hello, World.
>
>  My two cents . . . what's yours?
> _______________________________________________
> Web-SIG mailing list
> Web-SIG at python.org
> Web SIG: http://www.python.org/sigs/web-sig
> Unsubscribe:  
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/web-sig/ 
> mike_mp%40zzzcomputing.com