Juno looks to be simple and the developer has chosen a good set of libraries to build it on. It is a demonstration of the inherent simplicity in using well writ

Juno looks to be simple and the developer has chosen a good set of libraries to build it on. It is a demonstration of the inherent simplicity in using well written, WSGI aware python libraries. IMO, web.py qualifies to be called "really lightweight" take for instance the hello world code: import web urls = ( '/(.*)', 'hello' ) app = web.application(urls, globals()) class hello: def GET(self, name): if not name: name = 'world' return 'Hello, ' + name + '!' if __name__ == "__main__": app.run() This has two advantages over the Juno code.. 1. more `REST`y (GET/POST) 2. `app` object is a wsgi callable.. More importantly, web.py does not need have any external library dependencies unless you choose to use mysql/postgresql when you have to install the db interface libraries. I had problem running the hello world Juno code because I did not have pysqlite2 installed.. huh? why do I need pysqlite2 to return a string? While some may object saying that web.py has a case of NIH, the code of web.py itself does not reflect any such attitude. The whole library is just a directory of aptly named modules. You can plop it anywhere in the python path and start coding ..