3 ms·
I have not used Pyramid or Flask framework in production, but I have played with both and watched their development over the years. Flask is easier to learn an
by leejoramo 14y ago
I have not used Pyramid or Flask framework in production, but I have played with both and watched their development over the years.
Flask is easier to learn and you could probably master it. It is well suited to projects with a smaller scope. (I leave it to you to decided how small is small, and how big is big. There is no clear cut line.)
Pyramid's documentation has been -- relative to Flask -- difficult. I know that the Pyramid team has been working to improve the documentation and the linked page looks like part of that effort.
The name Pyramid dates to 2010, prior to which it was know as repoze. It has even deeper roots and includes ideas and code from many prior projects: Zope, Plone, Grok, Pylons and probably more. However, working with Pyramid is more like Flask than Zope, more of a lightweight framework than a giant monolith. It is my understanding that Pyramid can draw on a much larger set of tools to build complex websites that require complex security, workflows, scalable servers, etc.
- Ixiaus 14y agoThis is false. Pyramid was not known as "repoze" which is a project to port interesting/good pieces of code from Zope to be standalone libraries of code. Pyramid used to be known as repoze.bfg or just bfg. It made liberal use of modern "light-weight" framework architecture decisions along with much more advanced and flexible workflows and code introduced through other repoze.* libraries (from Zope). In general though, I agree that Pyramid is well suited for large projects and ill-suited for small ones. Although I do use it for my small projects.
- leejoramo 14y agoI stand corrected.