11–20 of 127 posts
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
My explanation of Django's approach to migrations would involve a lot more expletives. It is by far my least favorite thing about the framework.
- Fields are not-null by default, the opposite of SQL itself
- Field declarations use argument names that sound like the SQL equivalents (default, on delete cascade/restrict), but they're fully enforced in python and don't make it into the SQL schema at all by default. I get that not every DB supports these features, and there are sometimes good reasons for doing something like a delete cascade in process (if you need to implement custom on-delete logic or something), but the DSL shouldn't read like SQL if it's not going to change the SQL schema. The default value thing combined with not-null by default is particularly easy to get bitten by adding a new field with default if you deploy migrations separately from deploying code (which you must do to avoid downtime): if you add a new field with a default value believing it's safe, you will probably get crashes in the interval between applying the migration & the new code deploying because you've got not-null column without a default value in the schema. They did finally add db_default recently, thankfully, but it took years!
- Django migrations cannot be understood in isolation, the sql a generated migration containing something like an AlterField operation will run depends on what earlier migrations say. You have to check with the sqlmigrate command and/or actually read earlier migrations to be sure you understand what the migration will do. Compared to Rails, where each migration can be read and understood in isolation (though you may still need to understand how a Rails migration DSL will translate to actual SQL of course). This also has a performance impact making Django migrations slower because Django has an in-memory model of what the schema should be at each migration point, so running a migration is not just "load the file and run the commands", it's "determine the schema that should exist after running this migration, diff that with the schema we think exists before this point, magically generate SQL for that diff, then run that".
- The makemigrations command to auto-generate pending migrations is very aggressive and will detect things as "changed" that don't impact the schema. If you changed some help text on a field, or a localization string, or the aforementioned only-in-python default value, makemigrations will see that as requiring a migration that does nothing. Leads to lots of cruft.
- Related to both of the above points, AlterField's auto-generated SQL can be dangerous and bad. Particularly, I've seen cases where very minor changes to a ForeignKey (like changing from nullable to not-nullable, or even not-schema-impacting changes like above) would, by default, have dropped the foreign key constraint & index, and then re-created them. Completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous since it could be locking a large table. I'm not positive, but in some cases I think these have been generated purely because of a django upgrade leading to it deciding the names of the indexes/constraints need to be changed for some reason.
- AlterField will also tend to stomp all over any tweaks you manually made to the schema to work around all these issues. If you manually wrote a SQL statement in an earlier migration to add a default value to a column, and then that column's definition gets tweaked months or years later the generated AlterField is gonna remove your default value. At a technical level this isn't surprising when you understand how Django is modeling the schema internally & generating the SQL changes, but it's definitely a bad user experience downstream of a lot of these design decisions.
Generally the field declaration/migrations system in Django feels to me designed to lead people down a garden path towards bad and dangerous behavior. If I had my druthers I'd enforce a policy in our Django app of "never run makemigrations, all migrations must be manually written SQL".
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
And you can add a DB and let there be managed by some other system.
Same goes for extending manage.py
I’ve worked on Django projects big and small and generally the speed are which we could deliver even on strange edge cases impressed.
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
With the addition of Phlex::Kit, it has made building out a component library pretty easy too. RubyUI https://github.com/ruby-ui/ruby_ui does a great job of showing off how to do this.
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
The whole appeal of Django is that you can just swap in a different templating engine / syntax if you prefer. And you can add a DB and let there be managed by some other system. Same goes for extending manage.py I’ve worked on Django projects big and small and generally the speed are which we could deliver even on strange edge cases impressed.
As a longtime Rails developer who has experimented with Python but knew little about Django, I read this article with interest. Something that jumped out at me was the author's description of the "models.py file, which contains all the application models (multiple models in a single file)". I did some quick research and I gather that this approach isn't maintained as you move beyond the scale of a toy application. I…
I'm not originally a Python guy, but when I’m forced to work with Django, what I do for models and settings and such is just creating a barrel module, that is—instead of models.py, have models/__init__.py that imports (and thus re-exports) everything from every file in the models folder. Then I can have a single model per file, as it should be. I’ll never understand the conventions of Python land, but at least the la…
Python is fairly accepting with modules being either directories or files.
Going the dir/__init__.py route also allows you to do a bit of encapsulation as you can not export things.
Of course, someone could import from your file directly still. But, yeah, there is no reason to keep all of your models in a single file.
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Python is used for much more than just web dev and Django, whereas Ruby seams to only be synonymous with Ruby on Rails. Do you think Rails is still worth using when investing in learning Python and Django has a much higher roi?
Majority of learning surface will come from framework and not the language, if you need Python elsewhere just learn that as well, but this shouldn't move framework choice much.
I'm working on a Rails and on a Django project for two different customers and I've been doing that for years now. I'd pick Rails over Django any time for every single feature. The absolute worst Django feature is the templating language. It seems to be designed to slow down developers to the like of old time Java web apps, almost mandatory templatetags et all. The query language is moderately bad, quite verbose (Mod…
Python is used for much more than just web dev and Django, whereas Ruby seams to only be synonymous with Ruby on Rails. Do you think Rails is still worth using when investing in learning Python and Django has a much higher roi?
Rails has been around two decades, Ruby three. Both will still be there down the road when you decide to try it out. A lot of what you learn in your Python work will translate in some way to Ruby & Rails.