Can you explain to me how unsexy problems like browser incompatibilities (yes a major pain) lie anywhere within the scope of webpy? Those seem to lie within the scope of the templating system and js library that you choose.
A larger, more complex framework does present serious problems when you have to architecture everything in strange ways to meet scaling needs or otherwise.
Note how much the twitter guys were so scared by ROR's complexity that they resisted doing the most trivial modifications? I want to understand my framework "all the way down." This is much the same reason I use linux.
Exactly. Webpy is for programmers, django for people who want to feel like programmers, but are really just walling themselves into pre-defined ultra-boring patterns.
And real computer scientists only program in machine code because everything else is a shortcut, right?
So you're saying that since web.py fails to provide a solution to common problems, it gives "real developers" the freedom to implement it themselves? Pesky frameworks like django only allow the same developers to jump straight to doing new things. Uh, that must be the pre-defined ultra-boring pattern.
Yes, I understand your concern. For sure, aaron was on drugs when he mentioned this quick, non-secure fix -- even though the asker most definitely had very loose security requirements given that he was using nothing more than CGI.
\But\ from the beginning, everyone using webpy has seem to know flup sessions to be the recommended way of doing sessions:
Let's look at this another way though. If you really need security, then which is better: a simple, quickly verifiable codebase like webpy, or a massive, magical code base like django and turbogears? Do any frameworks make any guarentees of security?
I have seen several high profile sites within the last two years with major, obvious security problems. As hard as this is to believe, I no longer think that security is what will determine the success of most any web app -- at all. Unless you have special needs, feelings of security should not be your primary metric in evaluating a framework.
Luckily I don't use a massive, magical code base like Django or TurboGears. I use Pylons, which is small enough that you can understand it all, large enough that you can actually do useful things with it, and written by some very smart people.
There's a difference between "Not savvy" and "Like an AOL user, and unaware of the rest of the Internet or the existence of email." He's making a crazy claim -- it's like saying that most people who drive Fords aren't sure about the distinction between a "carburetor" and a "door".
Most people who drive any sort of car don't know what a carburetor is. Heifermann's comment is hyperbolic, but not that far off the mark. There has to be a huge percentage of facebook and myspace users who NEVER use email. My own inbox is primarily turning into a collection box for online receipts and bank statement notices, just as my real-life mailbox has turned into a collection box for ... bank statements and other administrative paperwork I never read.
But you really think that people in college -- people who receive transcripts, syllabuses, and class announcements through email -- are the group most likely to abandon their inboxes?
'... You know it's not cool anymore when grandma is on it. ...'
Got the feeling this journo was suffering a bit of techno-fear.
'I have tried to find anyone I know on these sites - but nobody seems to be there'
It does highlight the boundary between current users and the mass market. Most of my initial twits came from my flickr friends where I recognised their twitter images before their names (there is a confusion of real names & user names with twitter). So if you don't have your current friends there and you don't/can't make new meaningful ones what is the use of using it?
'... "Up at dawn, back hurting. read the Guardian online," is the thrilling news from TopDoc. ...'
That is the crunch of the argument. No compelling use. Yet the same person is probably spouting out twit like messages all the time to people around him in the office . Twitter is just an extension of this using the phone or computer.
A larger, more complex framework does present serious problems when you have to architecture everything in strange ways to meet scaling needs or otherwise.
Note how much the twitter guys were so scared by ROR's complexity that they resisted doing the most trivial modifications? I want to understand my framework "all the way down." This is much the same reason I use linux.