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

Django 1.10 released

djangoproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 122 posts

Re: Django 1.10 released

#101

Post by kibibu »

dchuk wrote: post #5

As a Rails dude...is there any reason for me to learn Django at all? Everything I've heard about it is that it provides a lot of sane defaults (like Rails) but has much less "magic" than Rails is typically thought to have. And if the answer to my question is yes, what books/tutorials/screencasts/courses to people recommend to get started with?

My 2 cents is that if you have a lot of Rails knowledge it's probably not worth changing.

However, Django has a much better security track record, and Python is used in a lot of other fields so learning the language has broader benefits. For these reasons I absolutely recommend Django to newbies over Rails.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#102

Post by trymas »

encoderer wrote: post #84

If there are any Django masters in the building: If you were starting a project today would you use 1.10 or stick with the LTS release (1.8)? I have a fairly mature django project using 1.6 that I would be borrowing a bit from, and my experience not upgrading off 1.6 due to pain makes it feel like an LTS path might be a good choice?

TL;DR: always update Django to the latest version you can, if your app is a little bit bigger, jump from one LTS to another may take some time.

LTS is great, if there is some reason that you cannot upgrade when new release comes. But if you use any plugins, just update to the latest version your all plugins support. Some plugins like (or even need) to use internal Django API's and if your app becomes pretty big, you may be tempted to use those internals in some places as well, which makes upgrades more painful due to internal API changes.

Speaking from personal experience of upgrading pretty big and rather legacy app from Django 1.4 to 1.8. Took more than a week.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#103

Post by collyw »

dchuk wrote: post #5

As a Rails dude...is there any reason for me to learn Django at all? Everything I've heard about it is that it provides a lot of sane defaults (like Rails) but has much less "magic" than Rails is typically thought to have. And if the answer to my question is yes, what books/tutorials/screencasts/courses to people recommend to get started with?

Because it will be easy to learn coming from a Rails background (or so I have heard). In terms of features I think they are pretty equal.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#104

Post by collyw »

RussianCow wrote: post #26
CuriouslyC wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no point unless you are going to using a lot of Python's scientific computing apparatus, or you want the ability to rewrite "hot" code in Cython for better performance. If you are primarily focused on social-esque or CRUD-heavy apps there isn't really an upside vs Rails.

What could you possibly be doing that you need those things within a Django app? If you're placing CPU-intensive and scientific code directly into your web app backend, I'd rethink your architecture before you consider switching languages.

Come one, even scientific work will require a front end at some point. Not everything will be CPU intensive. And even if it is it may need some user interaction to get the task started - even if it is just uploading data to be processed offline.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#105

Post by oliwarner »

hrayr wrote: post #53
orf wrote: post #27

Shame 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 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…

I think most Django developers would love to use their toolkit elsewhere (eg the ORM) but in practice, everything it held together by so much Django glue (setting and convention) that I don't see how it would be practical.

By that point you may as well just import Django, bootstrap it and use what you need.

The other side of this argument, is you allow each component to be developed at its own speed. Again, the integration between elements (Models→ModelForm→Forms etc) is so tight this isn't practical. Just as making them less integrated [probably] makes them harder to use for people who just want to use Django.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#106

Post by oliwarner »

morgante wrote: post #65
sdegutis wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 deve…

You must have been asleep 5-10 years ago when Rails and Django were repeatedly being pitched against each other by hipster developers, leaving PHP, looking for the "new thing".

They were both scorching hot until somebody decided doing everything in Javascript was a good idea.

(Edit FTR: Given the topic thread, I feel it important to say that I didn't mean Node et al are better than Django, just that these hipsters thought —by virtue of being newer and newer is always better— it time to move on. I'm a Django dev and judging by the positive state of development, will be for a LONG time.)

Re: Django 1.10 released

#107

Post by babayega2 »

dchuk wrote: post #5

As a Rails dude...is there any reason for me to learn Django at all? Everything I've heard about it is that it provides a lot of sane defaults (like Rails) but has much less "magic" than Rails is typically thought to have. And if the answer to my question is yes, what books/tutorials/screencasts/courses to people recommend to get started with?

No any reason. RoR is great. But as a personal experience, most of my pals who came from the academic area ( Python in scientific programming is beautiful...), we felt more familiar with Django because, you see, it's more straight to use Python in producing dashboards or other Web based app. But I've personally found that the main thing is to generate backend data (Json, http request...) with Django/RoR and build the fronted with Js.

If you want to use in an effective manner your Python skills acquired in scientific programming to build web apps,...I would recommend Django.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#108

Post by babayega2 »

hrayr wrote: post #47
rufugee wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suppose if the framework, community and ecosystem are on par with each other, then the deciding factor would be the language.

Exactly. I've chosen Django because of Python.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#109

Post by brianwawok »

xlxlxlx wrote: post #100
brianwawok wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What did you do with it? I still haven't figured out what to do with them...

I made something like a cross between a chat room and reddit. There are any number of possible rooms (like subreddits), with new top level posts popping up in real time, and when you click on a post, it expands and the replies become visible as a comment chain. It's not done yet though. For a while now I've been trying to do as much as I can on a single project for one week, and then start another. I definitely plan…

Cool games and chat both seem like obvious uses.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#110

Post by jsmeaton »

ataylor32 wrote: post #97
jsmeaton wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next LTS will be released in about 9 months. If you're willing to make a small upgrade at that time, I'd build on 1.10 and then upgrade to 1.11 LTS, which will give you 3 years (I think..) plus 9 months of 1.10 support. Moving from 1.8 to 1.11 shouldn't require any changes provided that you're running with 0 deprecation warnings on 1.8. The new release scheme means that if you're running on an LTS with no depreca…

> Moving from 1.8 to 1.11 shouldn't require any changes provided that you're running with 0 deprecation warnings on 1.8. Yes, this is how it's supposed to be. This agrees with Django's roadmap (see the "I’m the maintainer of a reusable application. Which Django versions should I support?" question at the bottom): https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/jun/25/roadmap/ However, it depends on the third party apps you…

Yeah dependencies are always going to be an issue unfortunately. Django can make as many recommendations as it likes, but you're still at the mercy of all other dependencies.

Moving from 1.9 to 1.10 is different than moving from LTS to LTS. The hope is that 3rd party packages will be testing against LTS releases at the minimum, which should allow you to make the jump after packages have time to update themselves.

Post reply on HN