31–40 of 86 posts
It's not bad if your server isn't far away and you can compromise a bit on UX. A great tool if you need to quickly whip up a UI for some Python code (with more control than those machine learning-focused frameworks give you). Sadly it's apparently incompatible with SQLAlchemy 2.0, so I can't use it.
It's a beautiful project and close to the Holy grail of fullstack software development (a single framework for building modern Web apps). But, be advised that it's not production ready and quite unstable yet. this week my deploy script was broken because version 0.1.26 was un-released. Which broke my docker file build with pinned dependencies. The file upload component was changed a few times so my UI with file uploa…
For a full-stack framework I'd take something Typescript-based now, because TS has better static typing than Python currently (with all due respect to mypy), and the async story of JS is much easier than that of Python. And also the JIT. But it's interesting to see that Python is able to advance so much in this direction; I hope it will continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For a full-stack framework I'd take something Typescript-based now, because TS has better static typing than Python currently (with all due respect to mypy), and the async story of JS is much easier than that of Python. And also the JIT. But it's interesting to see that Python is able to advance so much in this direction; I hope it will continue.
Any typescript frameworks you recommend?
Don't. Just do not do this Python has a place in scripting Because you can, does not mean you should, build full applications with it It is a colossal waste of resources. It leads to genuine problems as it gets bigger that you will only find when you have considerable sunk costs. This is a terrible idea, it was a terrible idea in 1995 when people did this with Perl, it is a terrible idea now Use Python for what it is…
For this software if you change to any language it will still use the same architecture and technology, setup a http server and generate HTML and some client JS code to run on browser, just syntax difference or maybe performance. Curious what exactly is the part you think Python is dreadful at that this software contains? You can definitely say there are better performance language but I'm curious about if other fact…
• A large memory foot print
▪ Inefficient execution
That's two out of the top of my head
I have been badly burnt by Mailman3, pure Python, pretty front end, 2G needed to install it. That cost me real money. The difference between a cheap, and a very cheap, VPS
Don't. Just do not do this Python has a place in scripting Because you can, does not mean you should, build full applications with it It is a colossal waste of resources. It leads to genuine problems as it gets bigger that you will only find when you have considerable sunk costs. This is a terrible idea, it was a terrible idea in 1995 when people did this with Perl, it is a terrible idea now Use Python for what it is…
Don't. Just do not do this Python has a place in scripting Because you can, does not mean you should, build full applications with it It is a colossal waste of resources. It leads to genuine problems as it gets bigger that you will only find when you have considerable sunk costs. This is a terrible idea, it was a terrible idea in 1995 when people did this with Perl, it is a terrible idea now Use Python for what it is…
People also said similar things when Node.js crossed backed then the boundaries of our imagination. Nonetheless i agree that it can lead to genuine problems once it gets complex enough.
It amplifies all the bad desicions ever made in software
Because you can does not mean you should,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this software if you change to any language it will still use the same architecture and technology, setup a http server and generate HTML and some client JS code to run on browser, just syntax difference or maybe performance. Curious what exactly is the part you think Python is dreadful at that this software contains? You can definitely say there are better performance language but I'm curious about if other fact…
> Curious what exactly is the part you think Python is dreadful at • A large memory foot print ▪ Inefficient execution That's two out of the top of my head I have been badly burnt by Mailman3, pure Python, pretty front end, 2G needed to install it. That cost me real money. The difference between a cheap, and a very cheap, VPS
I followed the link to try the increment/decrement example/demo from the landing page ( https://pynecone.io/docs/getting-started/introduction ). There is probably almost a full one second delay between the time I click the "increment" button and the updated count being rendered. Not seeing any network requests so I can't imagine why it would be so laggy.
Yeah we’re only hosting on a single region at the moment so there can be latency depending on your location. We’re working on using edge computing to speed this up.
(very interesting project nonetheless!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found it very difficult to do things like rich text boxes for a ChatGPT clone I was writing aimed at being child friendly. Ended up giving up when it became a bit spaghetti-ish and after the documentation stopped being useful beyond hello world apps.
Cofounder of Pynecone here - thanks for the feedback. We’re prioritizing improving our docs and example apps in the upcoming weeks and will have a ChatGPT clone example. Definitely want to improve the onboarding experience and showcase these more complex use cases.
It’s just Python. The app state is just a class. State updates are methods in the class. And the UI is a reflection of the state. It's rare to see this sort of clarity on a landing page. Even more impressed to see that it carried over into the documentation, which is excellent. I've been a fan of the plotly/Dash framework, but this looks like an exciting alternative, feeling more immediately accessible without some o…
Serializing state together with some code that operates on it may be doable but sounds either complicated or brittle.