Django 1.10 released • Hacker News Board

Re: Django 1.10 released

#51

Post by swinglock » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

graffitici wrote: post #42

sneakymichael wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Potentially in part because, until fairly recently (version 1.7 I believe), Django didn't have support for database schema migration built-in- https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.7/topics/migrations/

I see. If that's the only reason, not sure if it's a major problem with the ORM, given that you could use South instead with almost the same outcome.

The built-in migration code is even the continuation of South.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/andrewgodwin/schema-mig...

Re: Django 1.10 released

#52

Post by rdudek » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

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…

So does that mean we should pick a new language/framework that is "hot" now and write a bunch of libraries for it? Basically, reinventing the wheel over and over and over again?

Re: Django 1.10 released

#53

Post by hrayr » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:12 PM UTC

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 included" model, but why can't we treat Django as the standards body, and the various starter packs as the more targeted "batteries are included" frameworks.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#54

Post by TylerE » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:14 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #48

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…

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…

Well, that's basically it. It certainly isn't cutting edge, nor anything close to it. It's stable and boring. Some people like that, believe it or not.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#55

Post by hrayr » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:15 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #48

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…

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…

Sometimes maturity trumps fads, in other words boring > hot.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#56

Post by vertex-four » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:19 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #48

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…

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…

And there's still a lot of stuff - even new projects - written in Java and on the JVM.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#57

Post by rukittenme » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:25 PM UTC

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…

You might as well use Flask at that point. You can use cookie-cutter to create the starter packs.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#58

Post by cmdrfred » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:32 PM UTC

rukittenme wrote: post #57

hrayr wrote: post #53

Earlier 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.

I love Flask. People say Django is easier to use but I had a much easier time with Flask. It's well documented and very flexible.

Re: Django 1.10 released

#59

Post by bedros » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:33 PM UTC

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?

on top of django tutorials, I found this tech blog to be excellent source of HOW-TOs

http://www.marinamele.com/django

Re: Django 1.10 released

#60

Post by coldtea » Mon, Aug 01, 2016, 9:36 PM UTC

sdegutis wrote: post #48

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…

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, but since then it's no longer hot or new, but since enough people adopted it, they wrote enough libraries for it to make it worth continuing to use on new projects.*

Yeah, in other words, it's now both mature and with a rich ecosystem. Just the ticket!

And I wouldn't even say that people went for it because it was "hot new" back in the day. People went for it because it solved their problems. Being in fashion was never it's strong point, Rails and Node/Express did far better with that.