Is this really true? Personally, I prefer Pylons by a large margin.
Is this really true? Personally, I prefer Pylons by a large margin.
That's true for big full stack frameworks, where most of the contenders disappeared. Real competition seems to happen mostly in the mini framework area, due to people being forced to ditch more and more parts of their full stacks and wondering why they couldn't instead build upon a small platform. Flask is gaining traction here.
And then there's app engine, where things run a bit differently, and forcing django et al on top of it can feel a bit unnatural. Tipfy seems to be en vogue there.
In Python country, you always had quite a number of projects that ran outside the mainstream, though. Tornado, cherrypy, web.py, web2py etc.
That said, I have recently been tinkering with a Satchmo cart. I am under the impression that Django apps that utilize the Django backends can be converted into plugins for other Django apps with trivial or near-trivial effort, and that gives Django-based applications a lot of power, because if both Satchmo and some Django-based forum use the Django admin and user database, I can plug in or replace forums really easily without creating a bunch of extra overhead for my users. That is very appealing to me, and the first reasonable use of a "big" framework (like Django, Rails, or Cake) as far as I am concerned. It has encouraged me to explore Django/Pinax more thoroughly.
Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - it can save a lot of time in certain projects. Sometimes though it's overkill for projects that don't need these features.
So I'm glad that Django isn't the one and only framework in Python, as it's good to have a choice. Multiple frameworks also mean competition and more ideas and approaches, which benefit everyone.
Never heard of Pylons.