Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Django 3.2

djangoproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 195 posts

Re: Django 3.2

#31

Post by leetrout »

Chris2048 wrote: post #26
leetrout wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s nothing wrong with PHP. And Laravel is very popular for good reasons. There are people out there writing Python just as bad as what you think of as bad PHP. One dev I knew insisted everything must be a list comprehension — including all for loops in regular flow control. That was Not Good(tm). ——— Edit: please read the parent comments for context. GP said there’s no right or wrong and OP said then why not use…

> There are people out there writing Python just as bad as what you think of as bad PHP. By that logic: there are people "out there" jamming pencils up their noses, therefore a shovel is just as good a writing implement as a pencil..

Sure. It’s up to the end user to use the tools in an appropriate way.

There are a ton of inconsistencies in the PHP standard library and I’m not defending that but that doesn’t make it “bad” as you insinuated.

Re: Django 3.2

#32

Post by danjac »

nickjj wrote: post #17

If anyone is curious I just updated my Docker / Django starter project to use 3.2. It uses Docker Compose + Django + Celery + PostgreSQL + Redis + Webpack + TailwindCSS and it's available at: https://github.com/nickjj/docker-django-example As an aside it's also using TailwindCSS 2.1 with the JIT compiler enabled.

Just upgraded my side project to both Django 3.2 and Tailwind 2.1 (with Jit enabled). No issues at all, other than some deprecation warnings on some 3rd party packages that will probably be fixed soon.

Re: Django 3.2

#33

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

rhizome31 wrote: post #19
pantulis wrote: post #14

Before Django the gold standard for Python web apps was Zope. What a tremendous achievement by the Django team!

Not sure if a lot of people on HN are old enough to remember that :)

Not many have ever heard of it, but everyone has seen the design that borrowed from the most well-known software that used Zope - Plone.

Of course, I'm referring to the early design of Wikipedia, which closely copied the design of Plone.

Re: Django 3.2

#34

Post by dragonsh »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #20
pantulis wrote: post #14

Before Django the gold standard for Python web apps was Zope. What a tremendous achievement by the Django team!

Zope? Now, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time... A long time. I wonder of this magnificent monstrosity is still alive?

It’s still alive and underpins the CMS plone [1].

It has evolved and separated into zope [2] zodb [3] and ztk.

[1] https://plone.org

[2] https://zope.org

[3] https://zodb.org

Note: circled the link.

Re: Django 3.2

#35

Post by otherme123 »

danjac wrote: post #12
godmode2019 wrote: post #4

I'm more if a flask man myself. Worked with django only when I had to. Maybe I'm wrong?

Depends what you want to do, and why you're doing it. Very often when I make something in Flask, I end up with so many dependencies it might as well be Django (but without the cohesion). On the other hand, Django might be overkill in some situations (e.g. a small API without a relational database backend).

I was forced to fall on this trap once: a guy has a small Flask app up and running, and he asked for help to implement: an ORM with migrations, an Admin and form validation (among other things that had nothing to do with Django such file parsing).

I suggested to migrate the app from Flask to Django while it was small and simple, but he refused for Django is "too big and complicated". OK, then. We ended up creating a monstrosity of Flask half-assed packages to include functionality that is already included in Django (think cache, csrf, admin...), plus WTForms, plus SQLAlchemy, plus Alembic, hard to test, hard to keep updated, hard to deploy, and so complex that it turned non-migrable to Django. Development felt like walking through mud.

Re: Django 3.2

#36

Post by jsmeaton »

codestasis wrote: post #5

Congratulations to the Django project and contributors on a big LTS release. And a huge thank you for the consistently excellent framework that so many have built their web dev careers on. I'll post this as a Show HN soon, but I'll mention it now as a soft-launch introduction. After a decade of using Django I started a project I always wanted to exist: backported security and bug fixes to old versions that the Django…

This is awesome, good luck!

It's a project/business that I've suggested a few times on the mailing lists and I'm truly surprised it's taken this long for someone to start one up. I'll be interested to see how/if the price points change over time.

The pro tier is approximately equivalent to <= 5 hours of developer time per month. At a minimum it gives useful information to developers trying to communicate the cost of delay to management. I think my org may have opted just to pay at one stage, considering the migration from 1.8 to 1.11 was measured in weeks not days.

Re: Django 3.2

#37

Post by Chris2048 »

leetrout wrote: post #31
Chris2048 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are people out there writing Python just as bad as what you think of as bad PHP. By that logic: there are people "out there" jamming pencils up their noses, therefore a shovel is just as good a writing implement as a pencil..

Sure. It’s up to the end user to use the tools in an appropriate way. There are a ton of inconsistencies in the PHP standard library and I’m not defending that but that doesn’t make it “bad” as you insinuated.

Then lets look at those semantics: what is bad, and is anything ever bad? Because I think mostly all frameworks are pretty easy in the small, it's how they help/hinder with larger projects that demonstrates their worth.

On that basis, sure, it's up to the user to figure out what's appropriate; and a shovel is not an appropriate writing implement - you could say it's even a "bad" one.

Re: Django 3.2

#39

Post by mherrmann »

vagrantJin wrote: post #18
codestasis wrote: post #5

Congratulations to the Django project and contributors on a big LTS release. And a huge thank you for the consistently excellent framework that so many have built their web dev careers on. I'll post this as a Show HN soon, but I'll mention it now as a soft-launch introduction. After a decade of using Django I started a project I always wanted to exist: backported security and bug fixes to old versions that the Django…

> It's free for personal use and a paid subscription for businesses and organizations. This is awesome.

I think it's a bad idea and would recommend grandparent to charge everyone for the service, then donate parts of the proceedings back to the Django project.
Post reply on HN