In response to comments and emails over the last few days saying, "I don't know why you are so obsessed with having just one Python web framework --- different people have different needs, competition spurs everyone to do better, and anyway, the technical issues aren't settled enough yet to pick a winner," I'd like to say, "Bah
." My argument comes down to this:
- Number of books on Rails: 12 (in print or in the works, and those are just the ones I know of). Number of books on TurboGears, Django, Pylon, and all the other Python web frameworks put together: 0. (I'm not counting John's book on network programming, or the Twisted book.)
- Number of Rails Pub Nights and other gatherings (including the Rails Conference): over 20, based on a quick google and some guesses. Number of attendees (i.e., potential collaborators, employers, or employees): hundreds. Equivalent numbers for Python's fragmented frameworks: less.
This is not
: it's about our obligation as developers to give maximum value to our customers. As long as Pythoneers' efforts are divided between [pick a random number] different frameworks, none of them will be as mature or reliable as Rails
, which means that developers using Python will be taking longer to accomplish less. Competition hasn't led to any of "our" frameworks surpassing Rails
to date; there's no reason to believe that will change, so picking one and making it competitive is, in my opinion, the only defensible course of action.
Now, back to marking...