Considering that Django has 1/5th as much "magic" as Rails, and that Rails powers some of the biggest websites on the world, I'd say "citation needed".
Considering that Django has 1/5th as much "magic" as Rails, and that Rails powers some of the biggest websites on the world, I'd say "citation needed".
Joking aside, generally we call "magic" uses of reflection, monkey-patching, auto-magically configured parts, parts of a framework that do way more than what we explicitly tell them, etc.
"1/5 less magic" is what we call in casual conversation "making a point" and not an actual measurement. It is however more than 85% factually correct.
The Django project leaders have stated that one of their goals was to not have "magic" in the framework, and in fact, one of the early (~ Django 1.2 or so) refactoring efforts was about removing "magic" too-clever parts for more explicitness.
Disqus
Instagram
Knight Foundation
MacArthur Foundation
Mozilla
National Geographic
Open Knowledge Foundation
Pinterest
Open Stackhttps://www.quora.com/Would-Pinterest-consider-Flask-in-plac...
Most of the projects in OpenStack use Flask or Pecan - or Falcon for one or two of the more performance sensitive APIs
But see for yourself: https://github.com/reddit/reddit
I don't know where I got that idea from.
Also, here's an interesting thread on Artima: "Please Teach me Web Frameworks for Python!"[1] by Guido van van Rossum[sic]. It's 11 years old (a lot has changed since?), but interesting.
[0]: https://github.com/python/pythondotorg
[1]: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=146149
https://www.wyc.io/posts/just-build-it-in-django-or-rails/
Instagram, Disqus, Bitbucket, Pinterest.
Apologies in advanced for any marketing copies you don't want to read. The information is there.
[1] https://engineering.instagram.com/web-service-efficiency-at-...