[deleted]
Django 1.10 released
61–70 of 122 posts
Re: Django 1.10 released
#62Shame about Channels, but I see the logic in not including it. Django is pretty awesome as a backend, and while it's not a 'cool' framework anymore (I feel old!) it's amazing for writing back-office applications. I use it as an API backend with Django-rest-framework. The advantage is you get ridiculous amounts of packages that all integrate with Django that does pretty much anything you want. Also the ORM doesn't suc…
Why did the ORM suck before? Were there major changes done to the ORM?
Was pretty limited and very very inferior to SQLAlchemy. It still is, but it's bearable.
As an example off the top of my head when I started with Django you couldn't bulk create objects, if you wanted to create 100 records it needed 100 separate INSERT statements. That got old fast.
Edit: Not sure why the downvotes, perhaps comment on why you think I'm wrong?
Re: Django 1.10 released
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why a shame? What would Channels buy you if it were included into the framework? I would love to see Django split up into smaller official external packages and repackaged as two or three different official starter packs (Traditional, API, SPA, etc.) with each containing a different set of packages that make sense (DRF, Channels, Models, Views, Forms, etc.). I know this goes against the current "Batteries are include…
You might as well use Flask at that point. You can use cookie-cutter to create the starter packs.
Sure, I love Flask but Django has it's own ecosystem and that's what I'm talking about. I know anyone can use cookie-cutter, but I'm talking about trimming Django itself. Externalize Forms, Templates, etc. and build several core starter packages (including current Django). This gives a few base starting points.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#64Shame about Channels, but I see the logic in not including it. Django is pretty awesome as a backend, and while it's not a 'cool' framework anymore (I feel old!) it's amazing for writing back-office applications. I use it as an API backend with Django-rest-framework. The advantage is you get ridiculous amounts of packages that all integrate with Django that does pretty much anything you want. Also the ORM doesn't suc…
Huh. Your argument in favor of Django is basically "it may not be cool, but it's got a lot of libraries written for it." Which is basically the same thing people used to say (and still say) about Java, compared to something "cool" and "new" like, say, Django or Rails (at the time). In other words, Django used to be picked because it was the hot new thing, but since then it's no longer hot or new, but since enough peo…
> In other words, Django used to be picked because it was the hot new thing
I picked up Django in February 2006, in fact the (very cool) boss I had back then picked it up for me and my other programmer colleague, I think it was version 0.96 (or maybe 0.92 ?, not sure). Anyway, we didn't pick Django because it was "new and cool", my boss had a business to run (which folded two years later for unrelated reasons), but instead because Django seemed like a pretty good candidate back then at doing a decent job. Which it did, admirably well, I think ours might have been one of the first lead-management systems built on top of Django's admin interface (lots of monkey-patching involved, which is still one of my "guilty" soft-spots as a programmer 10 years later).
Anyway, web programming back then was, how to put it, in a very interesting place. In Python's case we had Zope/Plone, which had sort of its separate ecosystem doing weird (but sometimes very interesting things) like an object-oriented database (hello, ZODB!) with a very interesing routing mechanism on top of it, Quixote (https://wiki.python.org/moin/Quixote) and mod_python (on top of which I built my first personal Python web-project). PHP was the hot thing, even though not the newest thing, Java's web offering consisted in Struts and some other thing which had a related name for which you needed to be an "Java architect" in order to put 2 forms and 3 templates together, Rails was just about to be launched, ASP was a joke (at least according to my other programmer colleague, who was also teaching ASP at University) and I won't comment on Perl, of which I know not too many things (and which seemed pretty cool, I have to admit).
Considering all this of course that Django (and Rails) was a huge breath of fresh air. People nowadays take things like JS web frameworks for granted, but until not too long ago the web was a very different place (which sometimes I really miss).
Re: Django 1.10 released
#65Shame about Channels, but I see the logic in not including it. Django is pretty awesome as a backend, and while it's not a 'cool' framework anymore (I feel old!) it's amazing for writing back-office applications. I use it as an API backend with Django-rest-framework. The advantage is you get ridiculous amounts of packages that all integrate with Django that does pretty much anything you want. Also the ORM doesn't suc…
Huh. Your argument in favor of Django is basically "it may not be cool, but it's got a lot of libraries written for it." Which is basically the same thing people used to say (and still say) about Java, compared to something "cool" and "new" like, say, Django or Rails (at the time). In other words, Django used to be picked because it was the hot new thing, but since then it's no longer hot or new, but since enough peo…
Was Django ever the hot new thing? Python certainly isn't and has never been "hot."
In the 2000s, it seems much more like all the attention went to RoR. Now all the attention goes to JavaScript.
In the meantime, Django has steadily added new functionality while adhering to smart core principles. It really does seem to be in the sweet spot of dependability and convenience. I don't think anything else is faster to develop with.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#66I'm still stuck with Django 1.4 for one of my projects, it's such a big hurdle to upgrade it. I wonder if it's worth to just straight up rewrite it in 1.10.
I agree with the advice of moving the project forward release by release. With that said, it might be useful to create a new project from the django-admin startproject template, and then add your apps back in.
Starting at 1.7, getting everything working and then doing it again with 1.10 would be my recommendation. YMMV though.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did the ORM suck before? Were there major changes done to the ORM?
Was pretty limited and very very inferior to SQLAlchemy. It still is, but it's bearable. As an example off the top of my head when I started with Django you couldn't bulk create objects, if you wanted to create 100 records it needed 100 separate INSERT statements. That got old fast. Edit: Not sure why the downvotes, perhaps comment on why you think I'm wrong?
That is true, but it was fixed in Django 1.4... in 2012. Technology moves a bit in 4 years.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone who picked Django over Rails ~10 years ago and has used it for everything since then-- I wouldn't bother. Django and Rails, like Python and Ruby, look more and more similar as time goes on. Not because they are becoming more similar, but because the web ecosystem around them has become a lot more diverse. If you want a break from Rails, learn Phoenix! Or Node, I guess. Furthermore, with the advent of fat f…
What a refreshingly honest answer...thank you. It's not often you see that sort of candor. I was personally a Rails guy, then switched to learning Django, but had the experience you note...both frameworks solved many problems which aren't as relevant in this age of SPAs. I suppose if you really liked Django's ORM it might be worth it, but doubt there's a huge amount of value to be gained. YMMV.
In the age of SPAs, I have actually found Django with DRF to be incredibly invaluable. The efficiency of just having to specify a few models and then getting a full REST API for them with minimal effort is tremendous.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#69Shame about Channels, but I see the logic in not including it. Django is pretty awesome as a backend, and while it's not a 'cool' framework anymore (I feel old!) it's amazing for writing back-office applications. I use it as an API backend with Django-rest-framework. The advantage is you get ridiculous amounts of packages that all integrate with Django that does pretty much anything you want. Also the ORM doesn't suc…
Channels will get there. It just wasn't quite ready on time for 1.10. Hopefully it will be ready on time for 1.11, and then it'll ship in Django.
Re: Django 1.10 released
#70I'm still stuck with Django 1.4 for one of my projects, it's such a big hurdle to upgrade it. I wonder if it's worth to just straight up rewrite it in 1.10.
As others have said, going release-by-release is the way to go. I migrated a project from 1.4 to 1.8 (LTS to LTS) over the course of a few months. It wasn't trivial, but it wasn't too difficult either.
The deprecation notices are usually (always?) accompanied by the code giving `DeprecationWarning` messages. These are silenced by default, but can be enabled by setting the environment variable: `PYTHONWARNING=d`. After upgrading to each major version, I'd recommend running with warnings enabled for a little while (in addition to reading the release notes), to see what may bite you at the next jump.