4 ms·

Could you explain a bit about your decision to use Flask + extensions rather than just Django? It seems like you started with Flask and added a bunch of extensi

Could you explain a bit about your decision to use Flask + extensions rather than just Django? It seems like you started with Flask and added a bunch of extensions to provide most of the things that Django provides out of the box...

landtuna 14y ago
I'm not the author, but I just picked a Flask / Backbone stack over Django (after initially starting with Django) because so much of Django didn't seem to fit. Django wanted me to make a server side template based CMS. All I wanted was something where I could make a server that talked mostly JSON to clients. (My web application controls and displays results from using some custom hardware and will serve at most tens of users.)
- landtuna 14y ago
  Also, because I don't need teh web scalez, I'm using Postgres. For fear of making things completely undevelopable for hires outside Silicon Valley and NYC, I passed on stuff like Coffeescript and SASS.
  - mattdeboard 14y ago
    Are you implying that you can't use Postgres for web-scale services?
    - pyre 14y ago
      I think the implication is that he/she doesn't need some exotic combination of SQL and NoSQL databases in some complicated stack for scaling.
    - landtuna 14y ago
      No, I'm just picking on the HN groupthink.
kosmikko 14y ago
What is good in Django is mainly it's ORM, which we don't need. Its templating system sucks, and also its memory usage and performance otherwise.
- sophacles 14y ago
  And if you really need a good ORM at some point, you can just us SQLAlchemy which is a lot nicer anyway.
- GeneralMaximus 14y ago
  Did you consider Pyramid? It's insanely flexible, has amazing documentation, doesn't make any assumptions about the kind of applications you want to build with it and has a "pay only for what you need" philosophy. I'm currently using Django for my projects because it's a good fit for them (CRUD apps that generate static pages; zero frontend wizardry), but if I were to write a frontend-heavy webapp that talked to a server using a JSON API, Pyramid would be my first choice.
koblas 14y ago
While I can't speak for the authors, I personally have been building out some sample apps with Tornado + Backbone. Since as it's working out Tornado provides a very scalable data layer with a minimum of fuss.
- saintfiends 14y ago
  As someone who literally started using tornado a few days back, I can completely agree about the minimum fuss part. Though documentation is a little sparse atm, it has a fairly small code base. I was a little surprised it didn't come with a sessions module.
  - koblas 14y ago
    IMHO - Sessions don't make sense at scale. When you have sessions you usually cache objects in sessions, which means you need complicated update mechanisms. Better to store the objects in Redis and just have a single update...

landtuna 14y ago

I'm not the author, but I just picked a Flask / Backbone stack over Django (after initially starting with Django) because so much of Django didn't seem to fit. Django wanted me to make a server side template based CMS. All I wanted was something where I could make a server that talked mostly JSON to clients. (My web application controls and displays results from using some custom hardware and will serve at most tens of users.)

landtuna 14y ago
Also, because I don't need teh web scalez, I'm using Postgres. For fear of making things completely undevelopable for hires outside Silicon Valley and NYC, I passed on stuff like Coffeescript and SASS.
- mattdeboard 14y ago
  Are you implying that you can't use Postgres for web-scale services?
  - pyre 14y ago
    I think the implication is that he/she doesn't need some exotic combination of SQL and NoSQL databases in some complicated stack for scaling.
  - landtuna 14y ago
    No, I'm just picking on the HN groupthink.

kosmikko 14y ago

What is good in Django is mainly it's ORM, which we don't need. Its templating system sucks, and also its memory usage and performance otherwise.

sophacles 14y ago
And if you really need a good ORM at some point, you can just us SQLAlchemy which is a lot nicer anyway.
GeneralMaximus 14y ago
Did you consider Pyramid? It's insanely flexible, has amazing documentation, doesn't make any assumptions about the kind of applications you want to build with it and has a "pay only for what you need" philosophy. I'm currently using Django for my projects because it's a good fit for them (CRUD apps that generate static pages; zero frontend wizardry), but if I were to write a frontend-heavy webapp that talked to a server using a JSON API, Pyramid would be my first choice.

koblas 14y ago

While I can't speak for the authors, I personally have been building out some sample apps with Tornado + Backbone. Since as it's working out Tornado provides a very scalable data layer with a minimum of fuss.

saintfiends 14y ago
As someone who literally started using tornado a few days back, I can completely agree about the minimum fuss part. Though documentation is a little sparse atm, it has a fairly small code base. I was a little surprised it didn't come with a sessions module.
- koblas 14y ago
  IMHO - Sessions don't make sense at scale. When you have sessions you usually cache objects in sessions, which means you need complicated update mechanisms. Better to store the objects in Redis and just have a single update...