5 ms·
I agree, the “batteries included” approach makes it very attractive for a new startup to use to get off the ground quickly. But in every case I have seen (3 sep
by tticvs 5y ago
I agree, the “batteries included” approach makes it very attractive for a new startup to use to get off the ground quickly. But in every case I have seen (3 separate companies now) it lets the team run up a huge amount of tech debt and get a lot of features locked into a very unscaleable, unperformant, architecture.
It’s tempting to prototype with it, but I can’t think of a single use case that wouldn’t be better served with another framework.
Django is not appropriate for production imo
- junon 5y agoEntirely agreed. This has been my experience as well.
- boxed 5y agoWhat a load of crap. I worked for 10 years on a huge code base. Using flask and SQLAlchemy is worse in every way for example.
- tticvs 5y agoYes, those would also be a very bad choice for a large project. But at least they have the advantage of being very lightweight so can be a good fit for adding simple crud features to a microservice, especially ML services that already need to use python for other reasons. Django is the worst of both worlds. Not suited for small services, and not able to scale with large ones. To your "load of crap" point, web development looked very different >10 years ago, Django was a lot better fit for that era. There is _zero_ reason to use it today.
- boxed 5y agoWhat would you suggest as an alternative?