By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
444,058 Members | 1,209 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 444,058 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

ruby on rails ... python on ?

P: n/a
The pragmatic programmers (Dave & Andy) are spreading a good word about
RubyOnRails. I was wondering if there are any Python programmers who are
/also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
Python world that is comparable.

-Flab
Jul 18 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
23 Replies


P: n/a
flab ba wrote:
The pragmatic programmers (Dave & Andy) are spreading a good word about
RubyOnRails. I was wondering if there are any Python programmers who are
/also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
Python world that is comparable.


I googled for that to learn about it. Saw a note in the home page
of rubyonrails.org from Oct 11 about them having a new bug tracker
working!

"Cool," sez I, a fan of issue trackers in general, "Let's see
what these Ruby guys have come up with for a bug tracker."

It's Trac.

Which is implemented in Python. ;-)

I guess that justifies the term "pragmatic" above, anyway.

(I haven't yet learned much about Rails, unfortunately, since
the web site is excrutiatingly slow right now. Maybe it will
be faster another time...)

To the OP: there are several Python "application frameworks"
which on the surface appear to be similar in goal to Rails.
I don't know much about them, and at the moment even their
names aren't coming to me, so I can't help more than that.
I think a search for "enterprise application framework Python"
would probably turn up at least one of them.

-Peter
Jul 18 '05 #2

P: n/a

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

flab ba wrote:
The pragmatic programmers (Dave & Andy) are spreading a good word about
RubyOnRails. I was wondering if there are any Python programmers who are
/also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
Python world that is comparable.


I googled for that to learn about it. Saw a note in the home page
of rubyonrails.org from Oct 11 about them having a new bug tracker
working!

"Cool," sez I, a fan of issue trackers in general, "Let's see
what these Ruby guys have come up with for a bug tracker."

It's Trac.


You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.

- Josiah

Jul 18 '05 #3

P: n/a
""I think a search for "enterprise application framework Python"
would probably turn up at least one of them.""

Hmm, indeed, that search practically screamed Peak, the Python
Enterprise Application Kit, which looks fascinating at
http://peak.telecommunity.com/ . Does anyone have any experience with
PEAK or knowledge about it?

Ron Stephens
Jul 18 '05 #4

P: n/a
Josiah Carlson wrote:
You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.


Spiffy indeed!

(I'm sure there's an obvious answer, but I'm curious why
they didn't use Basecamp instead of Trac for their bug tracker...)
Jul 18 '05 #5

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:24:31 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

flab ba wrote:
> The pragmatic programmers (Dave & Andy) are spreading a good word about
> RubyOnRails. I was wondering if there are any Python programmers who are
> /also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
> Python world that is comparable.


I googled for that to learn about it. Saw a note in the home page
of rubyonrails.org from Oct 11 about them having a new bug tracker
working!

"Cool," sez I, a fan of issue trackers in general, "Let's see
what these Ruby guys have come up with for a bug tracker."

It's Trac.


You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.

- Josiah


You're right - that web site does look quite spiffy. I was deciding on
Quixote for my web app framework, but even the author claims that it isn't
the right framework if you think a website is a graphics design problem.

I'm not a graphics designer, but I need more spiffyness than the MEMS web
site - which is done in Quixote.

-Alex
Jul 18 '05 #6

P: n/a

Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:

Josiah Carlson wrote:
You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.


Spiffy indeed!

(I'm sure there's an obvious answer, but I'm curious why
they didn't use Basecamp instead of Trac for their bug tracker...)


This is what I can tell (in the 5 minutes reading their web sites):

1. Trac was implemented when they started RubyOnRails, so they used it
because it fit with what they were doing.
2. RubyOnRails was developed.
3. Someone implemented Basecamp using RubyOnRails as a framework.

You can't really build an application before you build a framework, and
switching project management is, from what I hear, quite a bitch.

- Josiah

Jul 18 '05 #7

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 03:36:29 -0800, Ron Stephens wrote:
""I think a search for "enterprise application framework Python"
would probably turn up at least one of them.""

Hmm, indeed, that search practically screamed Peak, the Python
Enterprise Application Kit, which looks fascinating at
http://peak.telecommunity.com/ . Does anyone have any experience with
PEAK or knowledge about it?

Ron Stephens


Umm, Peak and Rails don't even look remotely similar in what they try to
accomplish.

-Flab
Jul 18 '05 #8

P: n/a

flab ba <fl**@large.net> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:24:31 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:
You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.

- Josiah


You're right - that web site does look quite spiffy. I was deciding on
Quixote for my web app framework, but even the author claims that it isn't
the right framework if you think a website is a graphics design problem.

I'm not a graphics designer, but I need more spiffyness than the MEMS web
site - which is done in Quixote.


I have no experience with any web development frameworks, so have little
to say in regards to them. I hope that Quixote, or whichever framework
you choose, ends up being the right choice for you.

- Josiah

Jul 18 '05 #9

P: n/a
Josiah Carlson wrote:
Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:
(I'm sure there's an obvious answer, but I'm curious why
they didn't use Basecamp instead of Trac for their bug tracker...)


This is what I can tell (in the 5 minutes reading their web sites):

1. Trac was implemented when they started RubyOnRails, so they used it
because it fit with what they were doing.
2. RubyOnRails was developed.
3. Someone implemented Basecamp using RubyOnRails as a framework.

You can't really build an application before you build a framework, and
switching project management is, from what I hear, quite a bitch.


You're turning this into a mystery then. :-) The announcement
that they "have finally taken the step to get a real bug tracker"
came on October 11, 2004. All the issues in it were added recently.

If they developed RubyOnRails since then, these guys are the
fastest damn programmers on the planet. I gotta get me some
of that Ruby! ;-)

-Peter
Jul 18 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 08:48:51 -0500, Peter Hansen <pe***@engcorp.com> wrote:
Josiah Carlson wrote:
You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.


Spiffy indeed!

It would have to be, to warrant
http://www.basecamphq.com/terms.html
;-)

Regards,
Bengt Richter
Jul 18 '05 #11

P: n/a
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 11:43:39 -0700,
flab ba <fl**@large.net> wrote:
I'm not a graphics designer, but I need more spiffyness than the MEMS web
site - which is done in Quixote.


The line about graphic design is there because PTL will be alien to graphic
designers, so if your HTML is very elaborate and requires lots of tweaking,
your standard HTML author will be confused. However, in lots of cases you
can just write plain vanilla HTML, being sure to put DIV elements and ID
attributes in the right places, and then style the pages with CSS. Quixote
is betting that pure HTML + CSS is the way of the future.

(I don't like the current MX style sheet either, but that's nothing to
do with Quixote.)

--amk
Jul 18 '05 #12

P: n/a
<SNIP>


To the OP: there are several Python "application frameworks"
which on the surface appear to be similar in goal to Rails.
I don't know much about them, and at the moment even their
names aren't coming to me, so I can't help more than that.
I think a search for "enterprise application framework Python"
would probably turn up at least one of them.

-Peter


Do you mean Zope?
Jul 18 '05 #13

P: n/a
Josiah Carlson wrote:
flab ba <fl**@large.net> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:24:31 -0700, Josiah Carlson wrote:
You'll notice a project linked from the RubyOnRails site: Basecamp
(www.basecamphq.com), which looks quite spiffy.

- Josiah

You're right - that web site does look quite spiffy. I was deciding on
Quixote for my web app framework, but even the author claims that it isn't
the right framework if you think a website is a graphics design problem.

I'm not a graphics designer, but I need more spiffyness than the MEMS web
site - which is done in Quixote.


I have no experience with any web development frameworks, so have little
to say in regards to them. I hope that Quixote, or whichever framework
you choose, ends up being the right choice for you.

- Josiah

ZOPE!!!
Jul 18 '05 #14

P: n/a
A.M. Kuchling <am*@amk.ca> wrote:
...
can just write plain vanilla HTML, being sure to put DIV elements and ID
attributes in the right places, and then style the pages with CSS. Quixote
is betting that pure HTML + CSS is the way of the future.


Sounds like a pretty safe bet to me, in general terms. I'm not quite
sure how fully a 'plain vanilla HTML' page can be controlled,
looks-wise, with CSS only, but no doubt as generations of CSS succeed
each other the trend is up (though I don't think it's asymptotically
going to 100%, but that's a different issue;-).
Alex
Jul 18 '05 #15

P: n/a
Alex Martelli wrote:
A.M. Kuchling <am*@amk.ca> wrote:
...
can just write plain vanilla HTML, being sure to put DIV elements and ID
attributes in the right places, and then style the pages with CSS. Quixote
is betting that pure HTML + CSS is the way of the future.

Sounds like a pretty safe bet to me, in general terms. I'm not quite
sure how fully a 'plain vanilla HTML' page can be controlled,
looks-wise, with CSS only, but no doubt as generations of CSS succeed
each other the trend is up (though I don't think it's asymptotically
going to 100%, but that's a different issue;-).
Alex


If you take a look at the Zen garden (http://csszengarden.com/) you will
realize that Quixote's bet is probably a good one. I was pleasantly
surprised how the recent re-work of www.holdenweb.com made the
programming for the site (it's static HTML produced from a database)
much less dependent on look-and-feel issues thanks to input from a good
designer.

regards
Steve
--
http://www.holdenweb.com
http://pydish.holdenweb.com
Holden Web LLC +1 800 494 3119
Jul 18 '05 #16

P: n/a
flab ba wrote:
/also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
Python world that is comparable.


yeah, zope.

It is so good it does not even look like python on the
surface ... one of the biggest mistakes in developing
web-frameworks is over-emphasizing the underlying
programming language.

A good web-framework should not look like
Ruby or Python, that is not what these languages were
designed for.

Of course the framework should allow easy access to
any class or module written in these languages, but
in the end the most important things are the services
that promote collaboration, allow a finely grained access
control by various means, create a self contained solutions
that can be easily deployed replicated or backed up.
Web frameworks must do the hardest thing of all,
support radically changing requirements.

These overly "programmatic" frameworks revolve around a single
person's ability to understand all aspects of the website,
and crash and burn when that person is not around anymore.

Istvan.

Jul 18 '05 #17

P: n/a
flab ba wrote:
The pragmatic programmers (Dave & Andy) are spreading a good word about
RubyOnRails. I was wondering if there are any Python programmers who are
/also/ familiar with Rails - and if they could recommend something in the
Python world that is comparable.


I've looked a little at Rails. It's not super special. Well, it *is*
compared to things like Java; dynamic languages *are* quite superior for
rapid development of websites, and Ruby and Python are similar languages
in that way.

Rails is really a whole stack that works well together. People have
been writing this sort of thing in Python for a long time; which isn't
to say they always have gotten it right, or that those efforts have had
the right perspective to be strategic successes (i.e., become popular).

Lessee... Rails seems to have:

* A simple object publisher. There's a ton of these in Python. It also
perhaps includes some sort of MVC system, where the object picks up a
template automatically if it exists. These exist as well, though I
think MVC efforts can become overly ambitious or overly restrictive
fairly easily.

* An object-relational mapper. I'd say this is close to SQLObject,
though SQLObject is in some ways more powerful.

* A templating system. Looks like ASP. There's lots of templating
languages in Python; the simplest (e.g., embed Python code) can be
problematic because of Python's significant whitespace. But anyway, we
have lots and lots of these, and there are real reasons for why there's
multiple templating languages. Spyce is probably the closest to Rails.
All three of these pieces fit together really well in Rails, which is
perhaps what it offers that Python doesn't have. Well, I'm sure some
framework out there has this, but it's hard to say, there's so damn many.

But, while this is really compelling when you show off the creation of a
simple system, I suspect it becomes a fair amount more complicated later
on. At least, that is my experience with Python projects of similar
ambition. It's neat to setup a database and have it work instantly,
complete with the standard CRUD forms. But this only works for "leaf"
tables, and even then no so well. How do you deal with joins? How do
you deal with complex requirements on input, or actions on updates?
Eventually you'll need to tweak a generated form just a *little*, does
that mean you have to throw away all the automated aspects and code it
by hand?

I don't mean to criticize Rails with these questions; it's not that
Python frameworks solve these wonderfully either, these are just hard
problems. But for realistic web applications these are inevitable
issues, and I suspect Rails isn't quite as compelling when you take them
into account.

OTOH, I'd love to see something in Python that is just as tight as
Rails, but uses all the pieces we've already developed. It's really
just a question of sticking pieces together; but that's a surprisingly
difficult operation.

--
Ian Bicking / ia**@colorstudy.com / http://blog.ianbicking.org
Jul 18 '05 #18

P: n/a
> yeah, zope.

It is so good it does not even look like python on the
surface ... one of the biggest mistakes in developing
web-frameworks is over-emphasizing the underlying
programming language.

A good web-framework should not look like
Ruby or Python, that is not what these languages were
designed for.


Why do you say that? I could agree if Zope could be programmed in many
languages. Then not tending to any language would be a benefit. On the
contrary, I see things like ZODB making things that are not Pythonic,
look Pythonic and that is considered a good feature.

A Python only framework not feeling like Python was a deterrent for me
to learn Zope well.
Jul 18 '05 #19

P: n/a
Ian Bicking <ia**@colorstudy.com> wrote:
OTOH, I'd love to see something in Python that is just as tight as
Rails, but uses all the pieces we've already developed. It's really
just a question of sticking pieces together; but that's a surprisingly
difficult operation.


I don't know why that would be surprising. Integration has *always*
been one of the hardest parts of putting a large system together, so
when the parts weren't designed to fit each other in the forst place...

--
One Zone to rule them all, One Zone to find them,
One Zone to name them all and in the domain bind them,
In the Land of DotCom where the Spammers lie.
Jul 18 '05 #20

P: n/a
Richard Blackwood wrote:
<SNIP>
To the OP: there are several Python "application frameworks"
which on the surface appear to be similar in goal to Rails.
I don't know much about them, and at the moment even their
names aren't coming to me, so I can't help more than that.
I think a search for "enterprise application framework Python"
would probably turn up at least one of them.


Do you mean Zope?


Yikes! I *didn't* mean Zope, as it doesn't qualify for the
term 'enterprise application framework' as I used it above,
but I *should* have meant Zope, because upon revisiting the
rubyonrails.org site, I see that it is a *web* framework.

No idea how I missed that key word. Perhaps the MVC part
grabbed my eyes and filtered the rest of my reading (which
was admittedly brief). Perhaps I was just on drugs. Was
that a Saturday? Yes, it was definitely the drugs. Today
I'm on *different* drugs, the pretty blue ones, and I'm
feeling much furrier, thank you. Down, Shadowfax, down!
Oh, the spiders are crawling up my legs! They're coming
to take me away, away! to the funny farm, where life is
Jul 18 '05 #21

P: n/a
> I've looked a little at Rails. It's not super special. Well, it *is*
compared to things like Java; dynamic languages *are* quite superior for
rapid development of websites, and Ruby and Python are similar languages
in that way.

Rails is really a whole stack that works well together. People have
been writing this sort of thing in Python for a long time; which isn't
to say they always have gotten it right, or that those efforts have had
the right perspective to be strategic successes (i.e., become popular).
I'd have to politely disagree that it's not super special. It
exists, in usable form, today, and works incredibly well and
incredibly cleanly. That's pretty super special, IMO :)

Talk is cheap!
All three of these pieces fit together really well in Rails, which is
perhaps what it offers that Python doesn't have. Well, I'm sure some
framework out there has this, but it's hard to say, there's so damn many.
I'm not at all sure.
But, while this is really compelling when you show off the creation of a
simple system, I suspect it becomes a fair amount more complicated later
on. At least, that is my experience with Python projects of similar
ambition. It's neat to setup a database and have it work instantly,
complete with the standard CRUD forms. But this only works for "leaf"
tables, and even then no so well. How do you deal with joins? How do
you deal with complex requirements on input, or actions on updates?
Eventually you'll need to tweak a generated form just a *little*, does
that mean you have to throw away all the automated aspects and code it
by hand?
I recommend watching the "2 hour" video at http://www.rubyonrails.org
(watch the last half)
I don't mean to criticize Rails with these questions; it's not that
Python frameworks solve these wonderfully either, these are just hard
problems. But for realistic web applications these are inevitable
issues, and I suspect Rails isn't quite as compelling when you take them
into account.

OTOH, I'd love to see something in Python that is just as tight as
Rails


Hell yes :)

Thanks for the objective and thoughtful post!

jblaine,
6yr-Python-fanatic-feeling-the-ruby-pull
Jul 18 '05 #22

P: n/a
Jeff Blaine wrote:
6yr-Python-fanatic-feeling-the-ruby-pull


Like I said before - if you're feeling the Ruby pull, go for it. I tried Ruby
and rather strongly disliked it. If, instead, you're feeling the Rails pull (you
feel the ideas behind Rails have merit), then why not just port it to Python?

-Dave
Jul 18 '05 #23

P: n/a
[Jeff Blaine]
6yr-Python-fanatic-feeling-the-ruby-pull

[Dave Brueck] Like I said before - if you're feeling the Ruby pull, go for it. I tried
Ruby and rather strongly disliked it. If, instead, you're feeling the
Rails pull (you feel the ideas behind Rails have merit), then why not
just port it to Python?


Or talk to someone who has already started. Peter Hunt declared to the
web-sig recently that he's interested in developing a python-on-rails,
which would also be WSGI compatible.

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/web...er/001042.html

Peter obviously hopes to capitalize on the portability of WSGI
middleware components.

regards,

--
alan kennedy
------------------------------------------------------
email alan: http://xhaus.com/contact/alan
Jul 18 '05 #24

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.