Photomatt (from WordPress) has built a central anti-spam service called Akismet that can be used with WordPress via a plugin. Additionally, there is an API that allows other services to be integrated. Basically a good idea - even though I generally have an aversion to central services, unless I myself operate these central services.
What really bothers me, however, is this small excerpt from the FAQ:
Well without giving too much of the secret sauce away, we can safely say that it would be pretty difficult to poison Akismet.
So central service - okay. I don't like it, but it certainly makes sense for others who cannot or do not want to operate such a service themselves. But "secret sauce" - I should send my comments with the personal data of my commenters to a foreign system, where I can't even see the software running behind it? Sorry, no thanks.
How do you know wether a framework fits your style of thinking? It's not as if you could just look into a mirror wether it suits you nicely, you need other ways to decide that. One way to decide it is productivity - how fast you get your project up and running.
But does that really tell you the whole story? What if the project would have been something completely different? Did you just hit the sweet spot of the framework? Where you just lucky?
One way to decide wether some framework, language or tool fits my style of working for me is to look at the basic abstractions this tool gives me. And to look how I can use them and how naturally they fit my thinking - do I stumble on problems, not immediately knowing what abstraction to use, what tool to pull? Or do things just fall in place?
I discovered quite early on that I am a bit uncommon in programming, in that I don't build my own abstractions and try to translate from them into what the language or framework gives me, but that I start to think directly in the abstractions and syntaxes given to me - but only if they match my way.
So that's for me the ultimate measurement of wether a framework really fits into my thinking: checking from time to time wether I try to do translations or wether stuff just flows. Reaching "the flow" is what it's all about for me nowadays.
So how does Django match up? Quite nicely. It really gives me what I need in most cases, there are only very few areas where "the flow" is broken, where I need to think around problems, start to do translations. One area is special behaviour of entry fields - this curently is done in Django with parameterized instances of predefined field classes. There is no really nice way to do subclassing, you end up copying code from other parts of the django source - definitely breaking "the flow".
But most other parts just fall into place: middleware for global management of the request-response span. Template loaders for - well - template loading (yes, it's not a big deal - but being able to write your own template loader really is helpfull). The urlpatterns -hey, that's really a cool idea, because of it's absolutely loose couplying you don't even try to model your urls after your code structure, but tend to design them. And that's how it should be.
Models just powerfull enough to really move the model-related functionality there (although the class MODULE stuff will make it even nicer, especially the kind of ugly module_globals thingy). It would be cool if model classes would support mixin classes, so that abstract apps could provide stuff that just would be referenced by users to add functionality. But you can solve many of those problems with generated classes - thanks to python introspection (although you need to know a bit about djangos model-magic).
Most complex stuff tends to go into template tags and generic views - my CMS project currently only has 3 view functions of it's own, the rest is abstracted away into generic views (for searching and tagging). Template tags could be a bit easier to write, especially the parser is too primitive - a library of helper functions for easy deconstructing the tag string would be good (hey, maybe I write one, the basics arealready in my SVN repository).
Template filters are a big of an ugly duckling - they don't see the request context, so they can't do much more than just take the incoming object and some constant parameters. I think they should get the context passed in, so that they could be a bit smarter, if needed (like allowing filters to resolve a parameter against the context).
Generic views are quite nice, too - even though I don't use the predefined ones that often. The main reason is that more often than not I end up in wrapping the generic views in some code that modifies their behaviour - and then it's quite often simpler to just roll my own. But they are great for first starts into areas, just tack them into your project and funcitonality is available. You can allways exchange them with your own view functions if you discover that you need to.
And the admin, the one thing that makes Django stand out in the crowd? In my first play-projects I loved it, in later ones I didn't use it (the Gallery doesn't need it), but with the CMS project I did the first one that makes really heavy use of it. And I have to say, I like it. It should get a bit more flexibility (the new_admin branch might help there, as it moves more stuff into templates, so they can be overridden), but overall it's really cool and usefull.
Two things, though, are definitely needed for the admin: full transaction support bound to request-response (ticket #9 in the django trac), because changing stuff and ending up with inconsistent tables is no fun. Like getting an exception because something broke in repr , so the log entry isn't written, but the object is written. Of course you don't notice it, go back, send again, end up with two objects and still no log message ...
The other thing that is needed: basic hooks for object-based authentication. Not a full blown ACL or anything like that, just some really simple hooks from the admin to the model that the user can define to tell the admin wether some object should be editable or should only be shown readonly. The main problem with the current solution is, it only handles full tables - you can't even tell the admin that some user can only work on the current site and can't change objects of other sites (my CMS project makes heavy use of the multi-site capability in Django - one admin server should manage multiple sites in one admin interface).
But all in all webapp building with Django is real fun. It's not only productive to me, it just feels natural to do things the Django way. So, yes, Django fits my thinking style. Seems to have hit home right on.
Django already includes a markdown filter (in contrib.markup), but I nonetheless rolled my own Markdown for Django mini-app. The main benefits are link integration with django models (by using generic model queries and get absolute url), a documentation generic view that handles language switching and a nice macro facility for markdown. Macros are a usefull way to extend markdown by writing Django template snippets that are called whenever the users calls the makro in his markdown source.
It was formerly part of the CMS project, but I think it's usefull in it's own and so much better put into the stuff pseudo-project.
Scatha and Glaurung are two chess programs written in OpenMCL, with Cocoa support from OpenMCL. Nice examples of how to build native OS X applications with OpenMCL - and they are also interesting to play, especially the hexagonal chess version.
