10 ms·

Ask HN: Best Python web framework

• kung-fu-master 15y ago
  Flask is best IMHO. Django is good enough.
• lucian1900 15y ago
  Sadly, Django is still by far the most popular. It's ok, though. You're likely to not hate it intensely. It also has a lot of third party code available, and a fair amount of functionality built-in. Flask is nicer (and lets you seamlessly use SQLAlchemy, which is so much better than Django's crappy ORM), but also tiny. It's basically just a bit of glue between werkzeug, SQLAlchemy and Jinja2. Pyramid has more things in it than Flask and also uses SQLAlchemy. web2py appears both bad and unpopular to me.
  • antihero 15y ago
    I don't think it's a sad thing. For most websites and apps, Django is perfectly great and has things like patterns so if you want to genericify some of your code and use it on another site, you can just modularise it in an app. Flask has extensions and blueprints, but I find it far less friendly.
  • beagle3 15y ago
    Why does web2py appear bad to you? It is less popular than django, sure. But it is reasonably popular - with books about it coming out and selling well, and a lot of users, see http://web2py.com/poweredby http://web2py.com/poweredby including pycon registration websites.
  • drahcir 15y ago
    based on forum activity web2py was the second most popular python web framework (after Django) last time I checked. It is primarily unpopular among developers who haven't used it.
  • AnthonyB3 15y ago
    > web2py appears both bad and unpopular to me. Regarding popularity, for some time now the web2py Google Group has had more postings than the Django group, and the web2py group membership has been growing at a much faster rate than Django. Overall, Django is still more widely used, but web2py is certainly popular and growing rapidly. Regarding whether web2py is "bad", that's obviously your opinion, but it is notable that you did not provide any argument or evidence whatsoever to support it.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
• inovica 15y ago
  The best for what? What do you want to do? We have found Django to be great for throwing up a site quickly. We primarily use Pyramid now for our more serious development as it fits more with what we're trying to achieve. My feeling is the beauty of Python is that there are more than one ways of doing something. Define what you want out of your framework, try some and then see how you feel
  • benohear 15y ago
    The specific project I'm looking at is a small photo-sharing app for a newspaper website. Functionally simple, but with some pretty intense traffic spikes. Since it's a straightforward job I'd like to use it as an opportunity to switch to Python, which I've been itching to do for a while (alternative would be Symfony on PHP). However I have a longer term concern, which is that I don't want to be learning a new framework for every project or have legacies with the "wrong" framework knocking around. This is why I framed the question in general terms.
    • asto 15y ago
      Some stuff I know: Django is great for learning very fast. It has all the documentation in one place. There's generally one way to do any one thing with Django. Pyramid is super flexible because it's not much of a framework to begin with. Think of it as glue to stick together a bunch of components to handle specific parts of your app (like database ORM, cache, sessions etc) and you can use any components that you like. Pyramid is harder to pick up than Django though because of this reason. Pyramid is faster than django on benchmarks I've seen on the web (but this will hardly matter in the real world in my opinion) Both have some big projects executed using them(Disqus is written in Django and Reddit is written in pylons for examples) There are a bunch of other python frameworks that I haven't used yet so I can't tell you anything about them. I'm currently working on something using Pyramid so if you have something specific you want to know, I'll try and answer (I'm new to this too) I'd recommend learning django first though. It's what you should look at if you want a quick inroad into python web frameworks without much time spent learning.
    • deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
• calibwam 15y ago
  Depends on what you want from the framework. Django is good, but for a smaller blog, try pyblosxom, it's quite nice!
• dcESC 15y ago
  Pylons is now called pyramid. I don't know how much it changed? I prefer pylons above Django. Simply because it feels less like a framework.
  • masklinn 15y ago
    > I don't know how much it changed? All of the controllers stuff was replaced with the code formerly known as repoze.bfg
    • obtu 15y ago
      While Pyramid is Pylons' appointed successor, the code is mostly from the repoze project, with changes to make it more familiar to Pylons users: http://docs.pylonsproject.org/en/latest/faq/pyramid.html http://docs.pylonsproject.org/en/latest/faq/pyramid.html
• intellectronica 15y ago
  web.py
  • tonetheman 15y ago
    i like web.py also. not sure it is has tons of feature like the others but it is pretty simple to develop for and just works.
• zengyro 15y ago
  I use web2py. It struggles to get the attention that Django gets, but it has a robust development community. It offers a good balance between Django (which i find a little big and unwieldy), and Flask (which I think suffers from the opposite problem).
  • wilsaj 15y ago
    What's the opposite problem?
    • zengyro 15y ago
      'suffers' probably isn't the right word. Flask is designed under the assumption that you will most likely use third party frameworks for stuff like database abstraction and input validation. It's kinda neat in that regard, and if you prefer to work that way then more power to you. But I believe Web2py gets the balance between 'batteries included' and 'find your own damn batteries' right.
• glimmung 15y ago
  Depends on what you are developing, of course. I picked web2py about 3 years ago, and it has worked well for me. I'm developing CRUD apps to solve business problems with the minimum of fuss and effort, but with the confidence that I can roll my sleeves up and exercise more control if I need to - web2py has been a good fit for that.
• peter_l_downs 15y ago
  I really like bottle.py [1]. I've used it for a couple of different projects; although not fundamentally different from web.py or flask, it seems to just "make sense". [1] http://bottlepy.org/docs/stable/ http://bottlepy.org/docs/stable/ An example from their website: from bottle import get, post, request @get('/login') # or @route('/login') def login_form(): return '''<form method="POST"> <input name="name" type="text" /> <input name="password" type="password" /> </form>''' @post('/login') # or @route('/login', method='POST') def login_submit(): name = request.forms.get('name') password = request.forms.get('password') if check_login(name, password): return "<p>Your login was correct</p>" else: return "<p>Login failed</p>"
  • jtreminio 15y ago
    PHP guy here, don't know much about other languages, but seeing HTML mixed in with code is usually a bad code smell. Is this type of thing common in Python?
    • Sargis 15y ago
      No, it's not. He's just showcasing the simplicity of bottle.py
    • obtu 15y ago
      Those micro-frameworks are designed to make a hello-world app very short and to the point. There's one (aspen.io) that uses the ^L character as a section separator to achieve maximum concision: setup, request handling, optional template. No space is wasted on function blocks or explicit registration calls.
    • greut 15y ago
      PHP is about mixing it with other stuff (hence the <?php tag). So PHP smells by definition :-)
      • nobleach 15y ago
• iso8859-1 15y ago
  CherryPy has had Python 3 support for quite a while now. Not many Python frameworks have that. Pylons just got it, so I'd go with CherryPy. You can get WebSocket support too, and documentation is OK.
  • sidman 15y ago
    Yep, cherrypy is my tool of choice also, very simple , very light , does the job. I have used tornado, which i quite like also ...
    • illumen 15y ago
      I like cherrypy too! :) It's like my secret python weapon.
  • hogu 15y ago
    I see so much stuff about flask and bottle, but not much about cherrypy, what do those do for you that cherrypy doesn't? cherry py has always worked well for me, I'm a fan.
• tzury 15y ago
  Tornado. Built-in async operations. Not standing in your way. Rapid developments. Huge community. Simply works. Simple, yet rich.
  • qxcv 15y ago
    The "simple" bit is what I love about Tornado. You only have to deal with RequestHandlers and Applications - no Flask-like automagic object proxies which make you do everything within the lifetime of a request. The API is clean and easy to hack. That said, you can't go too far wrong picking Python web frameworks. They each have their strengths and weaknesses, but on the whole they're all fairly competitive offerings with helpful communities. If you don't find something you like then it's pretty trivial to roll-your-own from existing components like Werkzeug, WTForms, SQLAlchemy, Jinja, beaker, Mako, etc.
  • j2labs 15y ago
    Don't use Tornado unless you plan to build a full SOA. Python drivers are blocking by default and Tornado offers no support for that, meaning Tornado blocks if you have database calls in your code. Use gevent. Huge community. Simply works and simply scales. And it makes all your blocking calls nonblocking automatically. Tornado just blocks.
    • hogu 15y ago
      thats a bit of a simplification - you can definiltey use tornado as long as you've got a tornado compatible async driver. people using mongo, postgres, or anything with an http interface are fine. Not wanting to deal with the mental overhead of callbacks, is the reason why I no longer want to use tornado
      • j2labs 15y ago
        There are very few Tornado compatible async drivers, so I don't believe it is a simplification.
    • obtu 15y ago
      gevent works thanks to monkey patching of a great many libraries. Its failure modes are a lot more obscure than with callbacks; you pretty much have to unwrap nonblocking calls in your mind that aren't apparent in the code.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• idan 15y ago
  (Full disclosure: I'm a member of Django's core team) There's no single "best" for every application. One-size-fits-none. One of Django's strengths is in the fact that parts of the framework come off easily when they no longer serve your needs. If the ORM is no longer working for you, you can use SQLAlchemy or write raw SQL. Authentication no longer working for you? Write your own or use a 3rd party one. Et cetera. The key aspect is that you don't need to sacrifice the entire framework when only one part of it no longer addresses your needs. Keep in mind that 99% of sites never even reach this point. The other major strength of django is the rich ecosystem of 3rd party apps. That's a lot of code you don't need to write yourself. That being said, Flask is popular for a reason. Django offers a lot of power, which means adding some complexity to even the simplest projects (something we're working to address with features like project templates in Django 1.4). Flask fills a niche for a framework that is easy to get up and running and addresses 90% of the things which 90% of people need for many projects. I've heard good things about pyramid, but haven't had a chance to play yet. I haven't had the "pleasure" of working with web2py, and I'm not knocking the effort which Massimo puts into it, but the choices made there often elicit a raised eyebrow. Ignoring my opinion for a moment, the smartest web hackers I know universally regard web2py as a fundamentally incorrect way to approach web development—but usually say so in far more colorful terms. TL;DR * Flask for simpler stuff * Django for anything larger, or simple stuff that leverages a 3rd-party app you need. * What matters is the app you ship, not the framework it was built with. * Django developers are in super-high demand. I get cold-called frequently.
  • masklinn 15y ago
    > One of Django's strengths is in the fact that parts of the framework come off easily when they no longer serve your needs. If the ORM is no longer working for you, you can use SQLAlchemy. Authentication no longer working for you? Write your own or use a 3rd party one. Yes and no (disclaimer: I mostly use Django for my development), while parts come off easily the tools provided by the framework are "standard" and taking them off usually means not being able to take advantages of many Django features, e.g. if you replace django's ORM with SQLAlchemy, you'll have to say goodbye to the admin or to ModelForms, if you don't use Django's auth then extensions to it (django-registration &al) will have to be torn-out and/or reimplemented, ... So while theoretically you can remove things, it's not a straightforward process and it'll likely be a lonesome road.
• ruxkor 15y ago
  I'm surprised nobody mentioned brubeck (http://brubeck.io http://brubeck.io) until now, which takes a completely fresh approach to concurrent handling via implicit context switching (more on their website). Obviously, as idan mentioned already, there is no single "best" framework, so it really depends on the type of application you want to build whether you should choose something like bottle/flask, django/mezzanine/pinax or brubeck/tornado, or even twisted.
• sontek 15y ago
  Pyramid is probably the best at the moment. It has a lot of power when it comes to fine grained security utilizing access control lists and it integrates really well with the major python libraries out there.
• magnusmorton 15y ago
  Which (or do any) of the major Python frameworks have Python 3 support?
  • mhd 15y ago
    Pyramid, CherryPy and Tornado. Bottle does, too, but I don't know if you'd consider it "major".
• illumen 15y ago
  Pyramid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_%28web_framework%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_%28web_framework%29 * faster. * better quality (100% statement coverage via unit tests) * supports latest python. * great documentation (including free up to date book). There's also a separate pyramid cookbook. * simplicity. If you just see a pyramid app, you can dive right in fairly easily without learning lots of alien stuff. * sensible defaults, and you can choose to swap out parts easily if you want (templates, ORM, etc). * works well with other python software, doesn't bundle everything in, with NIH syndrome. * great tools. like the web console that drops straight into a debugger when an exception happens on the page you're looking at. The framework that starts with D is a legacy framework (doesn't even support python3 yet).
  • TylerE 15y ago
    As an alternative viewpoint * It's complicated * It doesn't really do much for you (have to spend lots of effort/time/learning plumbing in all the 3rd party libs) * Lacks sensible defaults for many things * Documentation is rather lacking. Oh, there's tons of it, but it's rather maze-like and hard to use if you don't actually understand the system. High-level overview/cookbook type stuff is severely lacking.
    • illumen 15y ago
      Touché. Pyramid will: * get you laid. * help you take over the world. * bring about world peace. * 100% compatible with emacs, vim, textmate, and even eclipse. * enterprise mumble mumble certified. * tool of choice for the coolest startups in the world. * Compatible with multiple currencies, $ £ and €. So you can make three times as much money. * venture capitalists prefer it. 'I will chose companies that use pyramid, over those that use Django.' -- pg
    • kstrauser 15y ago
      I do agree about Pyramid's initial learning curve being a bit steep (or, at least it was more than a year ago when I was first picking it up). Still, I fell in love with Pyramid because it didn't try to do much for me. My previous company has a huge SQLAlchemy-based codebase with literally hundreds of defined classes, many with hugely complex relationships (as it was built on top of a legacy database that had accreted over many years). Switching to a non-Alchemy backend simply wasn't an option. They also have a large, complex web application built in Zope with hundreds of tested, working page templates. Django is the easy first choice when starting a new Python web app. However, if we'd replaced the Django ORM with SQLAlchemy and Django's templates with something like ZPT so that we could incorporate our large pre-existing code, there wouldn't have been a lot of Django we could still use. In particular, the admin would have been virtually unusable without a large amount of reimplementation to adapt it to our internal code. Pyramid was a big win for us in that it used our preferred backend choices by default. More importantly, though, was that it's comparatively very easy to change those defaults without losing the rest of Pyramid's features. After a couple of hours of experimenting with integrating our legacy codebase, I had new pages up and running. I have nothing bad to say about Django and I've used it successfully in other projects. It's a neat framework with a lot of talented people behind it. But Pyramid has its own charms, especially for those who absolutely need to do things their own way.
• espeed 15y ago
  Flask is at about the right level of abstraction in the age of polyglot DBs and the JS movement to put the presentation in the browser. Flask gets out of your way and makes it easy to adapt to the changing environment without having to hack your way out of a monolith. Diesel (http://diesel.io/ http://diesel.io/) has piqued my interest as of late -- it's a high-concurrency, coroutine-based framework with Flask under the hood, by the guys at Bump. The next-gen Python Web frameworks will probably be non-WSGI because WSGI doesn't support WebSockets. One approach would be a ZeroMQ-based framework like Brubeck (http://brubeck.io/ http://brubeck.io/) behind Mongrel2 (http://mongrel2.org/ http://mongrel2.org/). But AFAIK, WebSocket support is not yet fully baked into Mongrel2. The handshake still needs to happen on the handler side.
• j2labs 15y ago
  Try Brubeck. It's a Python web framework built around Gevent, DictShield and ZeroMQ. It communicates with Mongrel2, it's web server, via ZeroMQ sockets so even the annoying design of WSGI is moved out of the way. It converts your blocking calls to nonblocking, has no spaghetti code filled with callback shenanigans, and can even generate a full REST API for you. https://github.com/j2labs/brubeck https://github.com/j2labs/brubeck
  • theonlyroot 15y ago
    I have used Pylons, Tornado and Brubeck in my projects over last couple of years and I must say if you are an experienced developer in Python, brubeck is a very good candidate. It is built for scalability in mind from day one. It is very light weight from code perspective and has a very transparent design which is very easy to understand to dive deeper if you need to.
    • j2labs 15y ago
      As the initial author of Brubeck, I'm very glad to hear this!
  • saurabh 15y ago
    Yes, Brubeck is awesome. What irritates me is this benchmark. https://gist.github.com/882555 https://gist.github.com/882555 >Availability: 99.98 % >Failed transactions: 2 I am guessing Brubeck runs solid now. But that benchmark was done 5 months ago and it's still advertised on this page. http://brubeck.io/readme.html http://brubeck.io/readme.html
    • j2labs 15y ago
      I see. I will update. This test was also performed with Eventlet and I found Eventlet to occasionally fail requests. I have since switched over to Gevent and the performance is significantly better than Tornado now. I will update this test very soon to demonstrate.
      • 15y ago
• drahcir 15y ago
  I have used web2py for the last few years and have been happy with it: - well designed components: DAL, SQLFORM, views, etc - commitment to backwards compatibility - works on GAE - helpful community (groups.google.com/group/web2py) - thorough documentation (web2py.com/book) The main criticism of web2py is that its design is not 'pythonic', which is irrelevant to me.
• gbog 15y ago
  As with whichever framework you choose you will have to get inside its code to understand it, adapt to it or fix it, I would advise to choose one framework that has code that is pleasing to read and follow very strictly conventions. Right now my box is broken so I can't check but last I have checked Django had a relatively good pylint score, while Flask had a seemingly slightly more messy code base.
• beagle3 15y ago
  web2py is great. Really. I'm quite sure some people are confusing web.py (toolkit behind reddit) and web2py - I know I was a couple of years ago. web2py is super complete, but doesn't get in your way, and doesn't require you to learn everything up front. It's DAL is much simpler (and in my opinion, much more effective) than an ORM -- but you don't have to use it. Its templating system is just plain python inside {{}}, where you need to add "pass:" to dedent if it cannot be inferred from the code, but that's it. No need to learn a new templating system. The community is super awesome. Starter applications like issue trackers, minimal facebooks or twitters etc. are often posted on the mailing list inside one short message (not as an attachment -- the whole thing is posted inside the message text, and takes no more than two screenfuls) Really, give web2py a try if you haven't.
  • masklinn 15y ago
    > I'm quite sure some people are confusing web.py (toolkit behind reddit) and web2py Quite unlikely, they'd probably have far more praises for it if they did confuse them.
  • tbatterii 15y ago
    reddit is built on pylons now. though there's way more code in it that has nothing to do with pylons.
• wyuenho 15y ago
  BlueberryPy author here. Allow me to plug CherryPy and my micro-framework built on top of CherryPy called BlueberryPy. Here's my answer on stackoverflow early last year when someone asked for a CherryPy vs Flask comparison. I believe all the points still stand and still represent CherryPy's strengths. 1. Simplicity. Controller object trees more or less equal to how you would define your URLs. 2. Flexibility. In case you don't like how the URLs are defined by default, you can use routes or methods to expose your URL handlers, which are just as easy. 3. Tools. CherryPy isn't religious about WSGI, though it's 100% compatible with the WSGI spec, the recommended approach is to use Tools. They are simple to make and use, and the way they are wired to the request is a lot more efficient than WSGI, which typically a request has to pass through whether or not that particular WSGI middleware is relevant. (Unless you use a framework where each URL handler is a WSGI application, but wiring up WSGI apps are still annoying). There are LOTS of them supplied by default that cover most of the use cases you can think of. 4. Plugins. For cross-cutting concerns, engine plugins are a much more granular, well-defined, and suitable way to deal with them as opposed to a WSGI app, which is typically the hammer people use to hammer in every screw these days. 5. Easy chunked responses. You just yield a string in the controller and that's it. Very useful for returning large documents in pieces. 6. Full-featured request and response objects. WebOb and CherryPy are about the only 2 frameworks that have comparably complete implementations of them, but I'd still choose CherryPy for the last reason: 7. Zero dependency on other packages. You won't bring in a dozen other libraries just to run a server. You just easy_install or pip install cherrypy and that's it. Its WSGI server is also the canonical choice if you need a fast and stable pure Python WSGI server implementation. It's actually really really fast and stable: http://nichol.as/benchmark-of-python-web-servers Now, I've been using CherryPy for about 5 years now and am still absolutely in love with it. I love it so much that I've decided last month to open source the micro-framework I've built on top of CherryPy called BlueberryPy: https://bitbucket.org/wyuenho/blueberrypy It's basically a set of additional tools and plugins for CherryPy which give you an easier integration with SQLAlchemy, logging, Redis and Jinja2, webassets and various other goodies. It also comes with a project skeleton generator akin to many other frameworks out there but doesn't get in your way with the generated source files. All that BlueberryPy asks for is a configuration directory with a few correct YAML config files with a few keys pointing to a few classes in your package. Documentation is a little light but more will come soon enough as I find time to finish them up. Stay tuned :P
• aaronsnow 15y ago
  Richard Jones did a nice presentation about this in August 2011, comparing 10 Python frameworks along a lot of useful metrics (perf, simplicity, size, documentation, etc) by developing the same "hello world"-ish app in each one. He even scored them at the end. The slides are at http://www.slideshare.net/r1chardj0n3s/web-microframework-battle http://www.slideshare.net/r1chardj0n3s/web-microframework-ba... -- they don't seem to be loading inline now but the PDF download still works. Video of the talk is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjPIMe0BhA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjPIMe0BhA . Spoiler alert: the winner was bottle.py, by a nose.
  • dagw 15y ago
    It's worth noting that he's mainly concerned with publishing existing python apps he's already written as simple web services, not writing a complete web site from scratch. If you just look at the slides it's easy to miss this. This doesn't invalidate anything he says as such, but it's worth keeping this in mind if you're planning on doing a more complete web site.
  • zwass 15y ago
    Despite Jones' use of standardized metrics, in real world use of three of these frameworks I found that his scores indicated little about how effectively each performed.
• esonderegger 15y ago
  I've been using Flask for my current project and I absolutely love it. The project is a web interface for our library's digital archives (mostly audio and video assets, but also images and print documents). Version 1 of the project used php and mysql for the front end with python scripts handling the transcoding and metadata handling on the back end. For a variety of reasons the project got bloated to the point of being unmanageable. I decided I wanted a fresh start with a python framework and considered all the ones mentioned here. I went with Flask because I wanted to leave the existing database structure in place and I wanted to err on the side of the framework doing too little instead of too much. As a non-programmer (my job title says "audio engineer"), Flask was simple enough to understand, but did enough to make my life considerably easier. My one gripe is I think Flask-Login still has room for improvement, at least in terms of documentation. I've gotten it working good enough, but I still don't understand how credentials are passed around my application. I'm sure other frameworks would have also gotten me to where I needed to be, but after working with Flask for a month or so, I'm not immediately reaching for something else.
• nashad 15y ago
  I built a couple of web.py apps and here are my observations: -- Advantages -- * Minimal configuration (No configuration file, just run a single python file in the simplest case) * Getting started is really fast * import whatever libraries you like (PyMongo, SqlAlchemy, Mako, Beaker, etc) - No lock in * The Web.py source is straightforward enough that you can go directly there to figure stuff out * WSGI compatible * No Admin interface and extra scaffolding * Very simple URL routing interface * Simple cookbook is available for adding basic features -- Disadvantages -- * Smaller community * Not a lot of documentation or guides * Some problems will require you to look at the source * No built in user management/auth * Web.py development community isn't adding new features rapidly --Conclusion-- Probably good for rapidly building simple web apps. It seems like the support/infrastructure needed for a large-scale production app isn't available. However if you are willing to build out your components it will give you maximum flexibility for a larger app
• AnthonyB3 15y ago
  Well, according to InfoWorld, web2py is the best Python framework (http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/pillars-python-six-python-web-frameworks-compared-169442 http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/pillars-p...). It also won a 2011 Bossie Award for open source development software (http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/pillars-python-six-python-web-frameworks-compared-169442 http://www.infoworld.com/d/application-development/pillars-p...) and a 2012 Technology of the Year Award (http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/24605/infoworlds-2012-technology-of-the-year-award-winners-183313 http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/24605/infoworlds-2012-tec...). Don't listen to the naysayers about web2py -- it is rare to find one who has actually ever used it. Meanwhile, web2py has a large, active, and steadily growing base of real users who are very happy and doing just fine producing and maintaining web applications with it. In fact, many web2py users are former Django users who simply find web2py more productive (see http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-web2py-over-Django/answer/Anthony-Bastardi http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-advantages-of-web2py-over-...). Note, most of the criticisms of web2py have all the earmarks of FUD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt) -- lots of references to authority and calls to stick with a perceived standard way of doing things, but not much discussion of actual technical merits nor presentation of any empirical evidence to back up the strong claims being made (see http://www.quora.com/Is-web2py-a-good-Python-web-framework/answer/Anthony-Bastardi http://www.quora.com/Is-web2py-a-good-Python-web-framework/a...). Some of the critics seem overly concerned with the notions of "explicitness" and "magic", but not everyone shares their concerns: https://twitter.com/#!/zedshaw/status/80418794526351360 https://twitter.com/#!/zedshaw/status/80418794526351360.
• edwinyzh 15y ago
  I've ten years of Delphi background. I'll choose Flask, because it's simple - I immediately learned how it works, and it's neat.
• blye_kzn 15y ago
  web2py : others :: python : others web2py : dj* :: python : java
• abdulhaq 15y ago
  Here's a vote for cherrypy - it handles all the http / protocol shenanigans for you, but leaves the meaty business side entirely to you - which, as an experienced developer, is what I want.