[senko]

Starlette and Django are wildly different.

Django has a batteries-includes approach, benefits from tighter integration of orm, auth, form handling, etc, and has a huge 3rd party ecosystem.

First-class async support in Django allows Django users to avoid jumping through hoops (celery, channels, ...) for longer-running requests, something especially noticable if you're calling any kind of AI service.

[coffeefirst]

As a long time Django user (haven’t tried async in prod yet) the appeal is to have the full Django toolkit and be able to set something up async _if_ needed.

Which is a very Django way to think: lots of tools ready to go, use only what you need.

[globular-toast]

How much of that is relevant if you're going to be using django-ninja (pydantic) and the whole app has to be async, though?

Django is fine for writing a thin CRUD layer around a database. It makes the easy stuff easy. But doesn't seem to help much for the hard stuff and often actively hinders it.

Really the main reason for Django is its ORM and migrations. It's basically the other Python ORM (next to SQLAlchemy) but, unlike SQLAlchemy, it's not designed to be used standalone. In my experience I find Django (and active record ORMs in general) easier for people to get started with, but massively limiting in long run for complex domains.

[senko]

> if you're going to be using django-ninja (pydantic)

This assumes that people don't do multi-page apps or sites any more, which ... isn't true. And I believe django-ninja replaces forms/serialization/deserialization and routing, while nicely integrating with everything else.

> Django is fine for writing a thin CRUD layer around a database.

In my dozen or so years with Django, I confess I did more than a few thin CRUD layers around a database. But also worked on billing systems for telecoms, insurance provider API services, live/on demand audio/video streaming services, a bunch of business process apps, AI codegen tools, and other web apps and API backends that were way more than thin CRUD layers around databases.

Django was rarely a hindrance. In fact, Python being sync-only (or Django not supporting async) was usually more of a hindrance that anything Django specific.

> In my experience I find Django (and active record ORMs in general) easier for people to get started with, but massively limiting in long run for complex domains.

In my exprience the only situations where Django's ORM doesn't help much is when you have a lot of business logic in your database (views, stored procedures), or the database is organized in a way that's not Django's preffered way. Still works, mind you, just not as great a experience. However, the vast majority of projects I've encountered have none of those.

Otherwise, I've found its ORM quite powerful, and easy to drop down to raw() in cases where you really need it (which was maybe 1% on the projects I've worked).

[bluewalt]

> Django was rarely a hindrance.

+1 on this. Django scales pretty well when adopting a clean architecture like Django Model Behaviours with mixins.

> Otherwise, I've found its ORM quite powerful.

Same. In ten years, the only issue I had is with a very complex query that the ORM was not able to write properly. But a workaround existed.

I'm currently using FastAPI in a project. It's very enjoyable (especially with a strictly typed codebase) but I have to write lots of batteries by myself, which is not very productive (unless you keep this boilerplate code for future projects).

[ensignavenger]

In what ways has Django been a hindrance in your experience? In my experience, I have never felt that way. When i have used a micro framework, sooner or later I always regret it and wish I had Django. When I use Django, and I needed to do somthing different, I have never had a problem with it getting in the way, I have used alternate ORMs, Raw SQL, I by default use Jinja templates, and many other "non-standard" things with Django. Async has been about the only area where I would even consider anything different in the past.

[globular-toast]

The main problem with Django is where to put business logic. It's actually kinda funny to write it like that, because that's the most important thing if you want to do something that isn't just CRUD.

Quick, where would you put a high-level business function that touches multiple models? Where would you put the model-level validation for that? I've seen all of the following: in a view, in a form, in a service-layer function, arbitrarily in one of the models/managers, implicitly in the database schema (just catch the IntegrityErrror!).

There are endless discussions online about where to do this. This isn't a good sign. It should be easy. The business logic should be at the heart of an application. But instead we see Django's ORM at the heart.

Django models are really limiting and totally tied to the database. You can't even have a model that has a list/set of items without getting into ForeignKeys etc. You can't test any of it without having the database present. Why would I need the database to be there to test business logic?! The point of an ORM is to do object persistence, not to do business logic.

So I've seen people do a separate set of ORM models and domain models and then manually mapping between them. This is possible, but it's a whole lot easier with something like SQLAlchemy which is actually designed for that (it's a data mapper rather than active record type ORM).

Then there's stuff like django-admin and ModelForms etc. which are the last thing you want if you're doing more than CRUD.

Tbh it would be utterly remarkable if Django somehow made this stuff easy. But it doesn't and I find myself wishing I just put in the effort to set up the boring stuff like auth etc. but with a proper architecture.

[ensignavenger]

So you want a web framework that dictates how you structure your application code? I think one of Django's strengths is that if a component doesn't work well for the application you are building, you are always free to choose something else. If the default Django app structure doesn't work well for you, you can pick any structure that does. Though I would argue that the default structure is exactly what the vast majority of web applications need.

[globular-toast]

No, I want a web framework that is just a web framework. The web is just an entrypoint to an application, like a CLI or GUI. If you use something like Flask or Pyramid this is exactly what you get. They are roughly analogous to something like Qt. Something that sits at the edge of an application converting low-level user input into high-level commands and events etc.

You could use Django like this, but you'd end up manually mapping between Django models and high-level domain models. But this mapping is exactly what an ORM like SQLAlchemy does! It seems crazy to do it yourself. So nobody does. They build fat models with all the business logic right next to application logic like foreign keys etc.

Even if you did try to do something different developers would complain that it's no longer a "Django project". Have you ever seen any Django project do business logic completely independently of application logic?

[ensignavenger]

So then your answer is simple- just like in Flask, put the function wherever it makes sense for your application and desired architecture.

If you really prefer SQLAlchemy, there is nothing stopping you from using it over the Django ORM, I happen to prefer the Django ORM, but Django doesn't get jealous if you go out with a different ORM (it is a polyamorious web framework[1]).

Yes, I have seen Django applications do that. There are plenty of individuals out there advocating such a separation. I wouldn't worry about these "different developers' and their opinions.

[1] I was going to use a smiley face here, but then I recalled that a Python dev was de-flocked recently for using smiley emoji as it is offensive to some individuals, so insert whatever words or symbols you don't find offensive that indicate humor instead.

[the__alchemist]

> Quick, where would you put a high-level business function that touches multiple models? Where would you put the model-level validation for that?

It's just python: `descriptive_name.py`. `ingest_validation.py` etc. If this seems too terse, it's because your question was posed in a general way. If you have more info on the sort of business logic you have in mind, or the sort of data validation, I'll reply with more.

Could you describe what you have in mind regarding models not tied to the database? If it's the naive interpretation I'm thinking of, use python dataclasses and enums. Django models are specifically to represent database schema.

Reading between the lines, perhaps you are looking for something not covered by a web framework? Django's features are for responding to HTTP requests, managing a relational database, auth, email, admin, templates etc. If you're trying to do something not part of this, use other parts of the Python language. Django is a library; Python is the more fundamental tool used to build applications.

[bluewalt]

Not a hindrance, but something like not having a typed database, no auto completion over time, can be a real drawback (I know about django-types).

Finally, in my opinion, the best reason to not use Django is not the project itself (because it will do the job in 99% case), it's because all you learn is tied to Django.

Having learn Pydantic recently was a breed of fresh air, and I would reuse it in lots of projects, not only web projects.

[ensignavenger]

I'm not sure what you mean? Django ORM works with common SQL databases, which are generally "typed"? Auto completion is generally a function of your IDE, and there are certainly IDE's with autocompletion that work well with Python and Django? I agree that Pydantic is a great library... I use it with Django quite often, as Django is a Python Library and it plays very well with other Python libraries like Pydantic.