<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: What Framework Are You Using?</title> <atom:link href="http://trentrichardson.com/2007/09/11/what-framework-are-you-using/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://trentrichardson.com/2007/09/11/what-framework-are-you-using/</link> <description>practical web design &#38; development</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 12:15:11 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator> <item><title>By: trent</title><link>http://trentrichardson.com/2007/09/11/what-framework-are-you-using/comment-page-1/#comment-1690</link> <dc:creator>trent</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:54:30 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://trentrichardson.com/?p=24#comment-1690</guid> <description>That was completely uncalled for and you are now banned from this blog.  Just Kidding!  I have done a little .NET myself but it doesn&#039;t fill the void. Sure it does have some very nice features and yes it normally does what its suppose to, but....NET seems to take away some of the access to the client side code, which I think is very important, not to mention I enjoy the clientside code more than serverside.  Sure there are ways around this but I hate to &quot;hack&quot; the framework just for a little proper html.I guess I&#039;m sort of a traditionalist and say let the server side code do server side stuff, and leave the client side to the client side languages.  I don&#039;t want a server side language doing both and limiting my flexibility when it comes to the design.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That was completely uncalled for and you are now banned from this blog.  Just Kidding!  I have done a little .NET myself but it doesn&#8217;t fill the void. Sure it does have some very nice features and yes it normally does what its suppose to, but&#8230;</p><p>.NET seems to take away some of the access to the client side code, which I think is very important, not to mention I enjoy the clientside code more than serverside.  Sure there are ways around this but I hate to &#8220;hack&#8221; the framework just for a little proper html.</p><p>I guess I&#8217;m sort of a traditionalist and say let the server side code do server side stuff, and leave the client side to the client side languages.  I don&#8217;t want a server side language doing both and limiting my flexibility when it comes to the design.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Bryan</title><link>http://trentrichardson.com/2007/09/11/what-framework-are-you-using/comment-page-1/#comment-1684</link> <dc:creator>Bryan</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2007 03:04:34 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://trentrichardson.com/?p=24#comment-1684</guid> <description>Although I have not tested these, there is the Zend framework (which I would hope would be good) and then CodeIgniter. I looked into CodeIgniter a little bit and it seemed pretty good. I am not recomending these because I have not used them, just some that I have read about. Those were both for PHP of course. But as you know, the recent discovery of django seems to over power them all with ease of use, functionality, and wonderful objects to play with.Like yourself, I have always been a little hesitant to use a framework. I have always been the one to actually want to learn how the programming language worked, not someone&#039;s interpretation of it. But I guess once you get past that, you realize that all that tedious work you once did is already done for you in more than likely a better way than you could do it.Going to get killed for this, but you know, the ASP.NET framework is pretty decent. :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although I have not tested these, there is the Zend framework (which I would hope would be good) and then CodeIgniter. I looked into CodeIgniter a little bit and it seemed pretty good. I am not recomending these because I have not used them, just some that I have read about. Those were both for PHP of course. But as you know, the recent discovery of django seems to over power them all with ease of use, functionality, and wonderful objects to play with.</p><p>Like yourself, I have always been a little hesitant to use a framework. I have always been the one to actually want to learn how the programming language worked, not someone&#8217;s interpretation of it. But I guess once you get past that, you realize that all that tedious work you once did is already done for you in more than likely a better way than you could do it.</p><p>Going to get killed for this, but you know, the ASP.NET framework is pretty decent. :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: stever</title><link>http://trentrichardson.com/2007/09/11/what-framework-are-you-using/comment-page-1/#comment-1682</link> <dc:creator>stever</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:07:51 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://trentrichardson.com/?p=24#comment-1682</guid> <description>I have been using django for some while now and imo its the best out there. Fastest templating language, support for multiple databases, clean urls, and a lot of other build in functionality.  I say django is the way to go!  But im interested in what others think as well</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been using django for some while now and imo its the best out there. Fastest templating language, support for multiple databases, clean urls, and a lot of other build in functionality.  I say django is the way to go!  But im interested in what others think as well</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: enhanced
Database Caching 3/9 queries in 0.053 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 245/245 objects using disk: basic

Served from: trentrichardson.com @ 2012-05-16 23:23:02 -->
