Is this site written in Django?

May I kindly point out two things:

  1. Let’s remember Django’s Code of Conduct which — while not explicitly it does so implicitly — states, that putting one language or software down for the reason of them not being to one’s liking, is not okay.
  2. One should use the best tool for the job. There are pretty much no other bulletin board hosted services out there. From Django’s infrastructure and operations team perspective, hosting another services ourselves is too much work. And then, what @adamchainz and @KenWhitesell already stated: the time spend to build a discussion board with the feature set we have with Discourse is very, very, very time consuming. And you can trust me, I’ve literally been there with ubunutuusers.de which is in fact written in Django. But is so tied to that specific community, that taking it apart and making it more general is a gigantic work effort. Which is also only done by a few people in their free time.

That said, with a few million US$ or € one should be able to start a company who’s product is a bulletin board with the feature set of Discourse, but written using Django.

1 Like

Can you see why that is not a good advertisement for Django?

“Marketing”-wise, sure, it would probably impress some people to see the forum built using Django, and it could maybe give Django a boost. It won’t happen though because of the costs involved, like MarkusH said. If you feel up to it you can invest your time into the open source project that Django is, and try to gather a team for making a replacement for Discourse, or go fundraising and pay others to do so. I’m sorry to say that I won’t join you though :wink: Everyone’s time is limited.

And as far as alternatives to using Django go, Ruby on Rails seems pretty great to me, from what little I’ve heard. You might like the Django chat episode where they speak with its creator. (speaking of Django Chat, there’s another episode where MarkusH also talks a bit about the forum he mentioned here, if that sounded interesting to you)

1 Like

Taking just one more stab at this with a couple of poor-but-hopefully-adequate analogies.
Django is a web application, djangoproject.com is a web site. Ruby on rails is a web application, Discourse is a web application, discourse.org is a web site.

If you want me to build a site like djangoproject.com (which, BTW, is built in Django), it’s a whole lot different than if you ask me to build something like Django.

No, I don’t agree. Leaving aside the budgetary and labor issues answered above, there are a couple of additional angles that this can be looked at.

If I need to choose a web framework to use, finding good documentation and an active community is more important to me than finding out that someone has managed to build a web site using it. I would like to think that the quality of the content of this site is a far better advertisement for Django than the forum itself.

I’m one of those people who chooses to throw some spare time at Django to try and help other people. (Unfortunately, I don’t find myself able to actually contribute to Django itself, but that’s a different issue.) I personally don’t care what is being used for the forum software. It’s just a tool that I’m using to make my contributions to the community, and I’m most grateful to Andrew who took his time and effort to choose to implement it. Had he selected something that didn’t work as well, there’s a pretty good chance that I wouldn’t be hanging around as an active participant.

To continue using your BMW analogy (possibly beyond the point of usefulness), do you think BWM makes 100% of the components in their cars? Do they fabricate their own steel? To they make their own chips for the on-board computers? Do they make their own electrical cables? (I think you get the idea.) I think if you look at modern automotive manufacturing, you’ll find that the “auto makers” make a lot less of the car than you might think. They function more primarily as the assembly line for putting the pieces together. The engineering comes from selecting the “best” component for each part of the car, where “best” means the component most suited for the job that fits within the budget constraints.

Finally, there is the aspect that I alluded to in an earlier response. I actually think it’s a Good Thing that the Django community is mature enough to acknowledge and accept that there are other quality products in this space, and is willing to use the right product to provide a needed service. (I have never bought into the mindset that for any given problem, there is one and only one best solution, or that “my” product of choice must be used for everything.)

1 Like

I would differentiate between a website and a web application in the sense that a website is a site that is mostly about presenting information to the user. A web application is a site that you interact with. So the homepage of the local ma and pa restaurant would be a website. Twitter would be a web application. Wikipedia would be a website to visitors and a web application to contributors.

I would disagree with this wholeheartedly. I have worked in large companies where marketing is like a golden cow that everyone dances around. This often leads to a mindset where appaerance becomes more important than everything else. I’m very glad that the Django community does not have this kind of mindset.

2 Likes

I must be missing a trick here, but where does it mention implicitly in the code of conduct that

putting one language or software down for the reason of them not being to one’s liking, is not okay

Seems like a stretch to me. Sorry If I’ve given the impression I’m putting Django down. I really like it actually, and much prefer it to Rails. (Am I allowed to say that here?) Also, surely, having a dig at Django (which let’s be honest is an inanimate object) is alright? If not I guess I’m in the wrong church.

@KenWhitesell I feel like the BMW analogy wasn’t quite to your liking.

To continue using your BMW analogy (possibly beyond the point of usefulness), do you think BWM makes 100% of the components in their cars? Do they fabricate their own steel?

I think you missed the point, however, and maybe I didn’t make it very well.

If I was going to buy a car, in a BMW dealership, and found out their cars were installed with Ford engines, it might make me think - maybe I should check out the local Ford dealership as well.

If I was perusing the Django forum “using Django” and found out the “Using Django” forum was built with Ruby on Rails technology - I might be inclined to head on over to their dealership. Since it is open source software - I would owe myself that, at least.

There are a lot of avenues you might go down with that information. For example, “if the Django is using Ruby, why bother learning Django - I may as well learn Ruby since it seems that’s what works best”

btw - of course car manufactures put in all kind of widgets into their cars - but as far as I can tell they don’t put in other key components into their cars which other competitors have manufactured, i.e the other competitors engines!

Show me one. And I’ll take this as a decent analogy. Ford do not put BMW engines in their cars. BMW do not put Tesla engines in their cars, etc.

Therefore, your reposte to my original analogy fails badly.

I restate my case again - Django forums should use Django Technology. End of Story. If the Django community is not presently capable of doing so, it speaks to something. But it does not speak of Django’s success.

I have noticed how various posters have managed to tie themselves into various positions of cognitive dissonance to reconcile this fact.

You can argue all you want about how great Django is - and I do not nor cannot presently debate that. But the fact remains - the official Django Forum website is using competitors tech.

Why is that? Do Microsoft use Apple’s OS? I think not.

I appreciate very much, by the way, all the contributors to this web-site. There has been noted in comments to my OG reply various people involved in the Django community who do tremendous work for the greater good – and I appreciate them more than i can say.

That does not negate my points.

To rephrase Iverson : It’s just practice!

It’s just a forum! How hard can it be if Django is the be-all-end-all? It’s not exactly sending a man to the moon.

Yes - I’ve doubled down on my OG assertion. I’m happy at this point to say “we do not agree and put it to bed”.

I’m not a last-word-freak - but the arguments presented so far do not lead me with confidence towards Django’s abilities.

Another point I wish to make : the arguments presented so far are 100% by the establishment. I feel like i’m committing heresy just bringing them up. I have questioned the Django faith - and the elders have responded as expected.

My 2 cents. (oh, I just did)

I also think you’re missing my point, perhaps because I didn’t make it well either.

We are not a commercial enterprise, we are not selling anything. If you want to go look at RoR, have at it! If it’s going to work better for you, great! We don’t lose anything by someone looking elsewhere for solutions, and perhaps, those people come back bringing in good ideas from other communities.

This is approaching the point that I apparently failed to make clear. The very idea that any one product “works best” across all domains is the worst kind of fanboy-ism.

Want to create a forum software product? It’s quite appropriate for you to evaluate all frameworks. I’d be the first to encourage you to do that. In fact, there are a couple of domains where I explicitly say that Django may not be the best choice.

But for the work that I do, I have made the decision that Django allows me to be the most productive in doing that work. (And no, it’s got nothing to do with writing a Forum package.)

Why?

Instead of continuing to make this blank assertion, it might be helpful for my understanding of the point you’re trying to make if you would address the specific issues previously presented.

You’re also making the assumption that “the Django community is not presently capable of doing so”, when no such comment has been made.

It’s not an issue of whether or not the community can do this work, it’s a question of should the community do this work - and what I, and others have tried to get across is that the decision has been made that we shouldn’t do this work - it’s not cost-effective to do so, when “cost” is being measured by hours spent by people who have better things to do with their time than reinventing the wheel.

Saying just implies a bit of dismissiveness that ignores the complexities involved in writing a full-featured and polished software product.

I have no idea how many man-hours of effort have gone into writing Discourse, do you?

Who is making that claim? I know I never have. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone making that claim. I certainly can’t find anything close to that on the DjangoProject web site.

I suggest you review the Code of Conduct

Excerpt from the 4th bullet:

Be respectful. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners.

Making ad-hominem statements about the volunteers here is not welcome. There are ways of making your point without making it personal.

But beyond that - what I read into this is that you’ve got some idea of what the Django community is, or what its resources are - and I can’t help but get the impression from what you’ve written that your perception is far from reality.

@KenWhitesell Sorry but I didn’t realise I wasn’t being respectful. I also didn’t realise I was making ad hominem comments about volunteers who work here, cite one. I also didn’t realise I was making it personal - I certainly don’t remember doing so - cite one.

Truth of the matter is you can’t.

But you are pretty quick to go to the rule-book for these perceived flagrances of the code of conduct when it suits your argument. Interesting.

Like I mentioned - it seems to me bringing this up has created a lot of cognitive dissonance, and this forum is certainly starting to feel to me like I went into the church of the holy and pissed in the communion wine…

I don’t think this is a forum for dissenting voices right now - little bit fragile. I guess the hammer will fall soon on me. And you can all go back to your echo chamber of congratulation.

The ultimate irony is when you say

your perception is far from reality

having previously pulled me up for ad hominem.

Oh Ken, I think we better call it a day here. After all - it’s just “Django”

c’est la vie

Um,

Another point I wish to make : the arguments presented so far are 100% by the establishment. I feel like i’m committing heresy just bringing them up. I have questioned the Django faith - and the elders have responded as expected.

I was one of the people who responded - do you consider me to be establishment? I’m relatively new to Django, I’ve never done anything professionally (ie paid) with it, and I don’t contribute other than posting here now and then or having answered a few posts on SO. Also, this does sound like an ad hominem attack, essentially sounding like you mean that the arguments are irrelevant because they are from the “establishment”, but maybe that’s not how you intended for this to be interpreted.

It seems to me like you expected Django to be the best tool for more or less everything web-related, including making this forum. And if that’s not Django, it looks bad and/or isn’t very good. You also seem to have the mindset that e. g. Django and RoR are “competitors” and that Django somehow needs to be “better” than RoR. I don’t really have a problem with anyone thinking that. Others can disagree with you though, that’s all. Personally I agreed with you in my previous post on the point that some people might see it as a bonus for Django if the forum itself would be created with Django, and I guess that was your main point? Apart from that, I’m not entirely sure what it is you wanted.

You mention cognitive dissonance, which is “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change”. It’s not clear to me what inconsistent beliefs you mean. “Django is a useful tool” and “It takes more work than it’s worth to create our own high-quality forum using Django”? To me, these beliefs can be consistent. If instead one thinks “Django is the best tool for everything web-related” and “It takes more work than it’s worth to create our own high-quality forum using Django” then there seems to be an inconsistency. I for one however fall in the “Django is a useful tool” camp, since I think there are and will be plenty of things that Django isn’t very good/appropriate for (or where there are already solutions made with other tools, like RoR and Discourse). If you’re of the opinion that “It takes more work than it’s worth to create our own high-quality forum using Django” is inconsistent with Django being “good”, then sure, by that metric/logic Django is bad. Can we now go back to hanging out and helping each other learn Django things or recommending additional useful tools? :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I do want to acknowledge that I have read your latest message. But as the entire message is commenting on people and not the original issue, I am not going to respond to it beyond the simple request that if you choose to quote me, I request that you quote nothing smaller than a complete sentence.

Should you wish to continue exploring whether or not Django should use a forum written in Django, I am more than willing to continue that discussion.

What is Django : The web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.

I’m somewhat inclined to regard the above as propaganda - information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

Given that new facts have come to light dude…

I’d be more inclined to consider the above words more favorably it if wasn’t stated as a fact, but rather an idealistic mission statement which is yet to be achieved.

When I mention cognitive dissonance I refer to the fact this forum isn’t built with Django, but with another framework. Given the above statements about Django, this seems to me a perfect case of cognitive dissonance when people try to defend their position - but I’m no expert on cognitive dissonance – I’m not a psychologist.

The way I was taught cognitive dissonance (Bsc Hons Psychology in the v.distant past, i.e 20+ years ago) is that when you have inconsistent thoughts or beliefs which jar with each other based on information you have about those beliefs, in particular the beliefs which have assumed prominence in your belief system, the other problematic thoughts must be reconciled in some way, not so you can embrace the new information, but keep those beliefs which are under attack by other information which threaten them (that’s really the key here) – there are several ways this can happen. One being denial. Another is finding information to support your decisions, whilst not looking for information which would support problematic beliefs, etc. There are other ways to square a circle - if it really matters.

Yes, lets get away from this, and get back to helping others (although as a noob, I’m the one asking for help). I’m just one person with an opinion nothing else.

I have read my previous message where you claim

the entire message is commenting on people and not the original issue"

I find no evidence of it. The entire message?

If you can find in any of my previous posts, which you allude to, where I comment on specific people I would be more than willing to retract those. That sounds fair to me.

I previously asked you to cite evidence regarding what you see as my ad hominem attacks - I see no evidence supporting your position this far.
You’re more than welcome to keep positing these asinine comments - the internet isn’t running out of ink - but unless I see actual evidence regarding what you refer to, I can’t possibly comment on how you interpret the information you believe you have read which I have previously posted.

As I mentioned previously to you - I think we’re done here. Let’s move on.

btw - of course car manufactures put in all kind of widgets into their cars - but as far as I can tell they don’t put in other key components into their cars which other competitors have manufactured, i.e the other competitors engines!

Erm, no this is not correct at all. Mclaren for example used BMW engines for the Mclaren F1 (not referring to formula one). Does this mean you would not buy an iconic Mclaren but would go and get a BMW?

It seems to me that you do not have an engineering mind at all. I don’t care what the forum is made from, it’s a matter of efficiency/cost and this is always the case. If Django insisted on using Django for everything, I would be less inclined to value it as a well engineered product. It’s all about Occam’s razor and not reinventing the wheel. Why is an organization using off the shelf products. It’s a bit like asking why an engineering firm buys cnc machines when their warehouse is full of raw metal, why don’t they make their own?

Fair enough with shooting down the car engine analogy - I was reaching there. Although I suspect on the whole I was right.

However, cherry-picking snippets to support your theme doesn’t mean I am wrong/right. Context is important.

I have no idea, and neither do you.

You seem to be reaching a bit by introducing Occam’s razor, and seem to be using it wrong, to support your point about re-inventing the wheel - i.e. why this site isn’t written in Django.

Occam’s razor is the principle that, of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct.

The simpler and more correct usage of Occam’s Razor might be in this case it was easier not to use Django to write a forum using Django.

Which basically supports my whole argument - thanks for pointing it out.

I would say, If Django makes the claims it does about its prowess as a web framework - why is that?

what is Django?

Django: The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines

Just not forums, apparently.
I’m not unhappy with the forum at all, it is disappointing to me (a bit - not as much as you might imagine) that the official Django forum chose competing tech and is not capable it seems of using Django to make a forum. That’s just me given how they present their web-framework.

I’m happy to continue the conversation, but I doubt it will further reconcile our two disparate viewpoints, or actually amount to anything worth taking note of.

I’m just one person sitting at a keyboard on the internet with an opinion.

Well I worked at Mclaren as an engineer, so I can categorically let you know you are very wrong in your assumption. As for the other semantic discussion, it’s not really that appropriate here, so discussing your philosophical argument that my analogy is malformed is a mute point as far as I am concerned. If you don’t want to understand an analogy in the spirit it was made then there is no discussion left to make, I’d suggest reddit where there are plenty of subreddits where you can discuss these kind of topics. If you don’t like how an open source project is marketed, then you should contribute yourself and rewrite the forum using django. I suspect it will take you quite a long time though.

Wow. Wow. Wow. I am just a poor old turkey trying to learn how to program in Python and Django. Ken has been very kind in helping me and I appreciate it greatly. I just got introduced to Sutton. Personally, I think this forum software sucks and have long wanted to build a better one. However, I love this conversation even though it has nothing really to do with programming in any language—well, at the first level. (BTW, I have no idea what ad hominem means.)But, it’s the first time I have seen careful, respectful infighting on a continuous basis with good and bad arguments flowing back and forth. I think the name “squeezemylizard” is juvenile and rude—but it’s just an opinion and I found sml to be quite respectful and careful in his comments even though I also totally disagreed with the BMW analogy. I worked for IBM a long time ago and you would be amazed at what we did—or didn’t do. Still, I think it is a great argument and I think the world needs more arguments like this. I am impressed that everyone hung in. In the U.S., Trump supporters and detractors should have arguments like this one. Religious battles like, Window versus Mac, are generally useless, but more subtle issues are valuable. Anyway, I loved this argument and will look for more.

1 Like

I agree with you : squeezemylizard is juvenile and rude. I couldn’t think of anything better at the time. My bad.

I think the forum software is awesome btw. But I’m desperately trying to extract myself from further convo on this matter. One guy with an opinion, dude. I’ve said my piece. I think from the feedback I’ve received so far - I’m wrong. That’s ok. Been wrong before, be wrong again…

We must agree to disagree - there’s no more mileage in our continued conversation. Good luck to you.

Interesting. I have been wrong many times myself. I really enjoyed this conversation because both sides were doing their best to express their opinions carefully which made it so interesting. It gave me a lot to think about and not just about this implementation of a software application. I was a big Lotus fan back in the day and I knew that they used a lot of different makers engines in their cars. They aren’t much anymore but they were the first marque to achieve 50 F1 wins even though Ferrari had a 9 year head start. Anyway, I did enjoy this and I hate the phrase “agree to disagree.” You simply disagree and that is both obvious and cool. Both sides of this argument were great regardless of what ad hominem means. Best of luck to you as well in whatever your endeavors.

1 Like

I think from the feedback I’ve received so far - I’m wrong
No not at all, this is your opinion and it is very valid, I disagree with it only to an extent, your point is a valid one. It has been addressed by contributors of the project with valid reasons as to why the situation is as is. Your opinion can never be wrong, it can only be disagreed with, if you claim it as a fact that can’t be backed up, that would be wrong, but you haven’t done that in any way, you have maintained that it is your opinion and with that I respect it. I personally am strongly opinionated and like argue hard, because it’s interesting to see others ideas, it does on no account mean someone is wrong because they hold that opinion, I really hope that is not the impression I gave and if I did I do apologize.