I love this. I'm an old French guy and still can't quite accept when srangers in an email (or a machine, a system, a web form) adress me using my first name.
Being "on a first name basis" still has meaning for me -- or it would, if it had for anyone else, which clearly is absolutely not the case anymore.
A steeper learning curve in a professional field generally translates into higher earnings. The longer you have to be trained to be helpful, the more a job generally earns.
I am already trained.
Now of course it is not Django's responsibility to unite the Python ecosystem in the first place and they can value other factors and arguments as they see fit.
Although this very thread shows that there might have been something to it.
Unfortunately every team I’ve worked in hasn’t seen the light and prefers FastAPI/SQLAlchemy/Pydantic (before FastAPI it was Flask).
My theory is that the initial learning curves are different: with FastAPI it’s quick and easy. You barely have to read anything. Django has a steeper learning curve. There’s a lot of reading involved. Type hints aren’t a big thing in Django, but they are in FastAPI, and the average full stack dev seems to like them.
Later on it’s totally different of course. With FastAPI you’re building it all from scratch, and it’ll be much worse than the Django solution.
SQLAlchemy was historically a much better ORM than Django's. It's layered architecture combined with Alembic does make a difference.
I still agree that using the integrated thing anyway is probably the right way to do it if you are working in a team. I also think Django should just adopt these components and we would not have the discussion in the first place.
It’s just not even remotely close to the same scale of problem. The United States has the largest economy in the world. It’s larger than the next three (China, Germany, Japan) economies combined.
I’m glad New Zealand was able to achieve their goal but I don’t see what it has to do with the US.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
1. "Hey what do you think of the new Apple iPhone 16?"
"It sounds interesting, I heard they made it easier to repair."
2. "Hey what do you think of the new Apple iPhone 16?"
"What is an Apple iPhone? I have never heard of such a thing!"
Clearly this is a rather extreme example, but I hope it illustrates what I am talking about. Branding, for Apple, involves putting their logo everywhere they can and advertising on TV, in magazines, on billboards, etc. If you disallow all of those things then it becomes much more reasonable to imagine a world in which scenario 2 is possible.
So maybe we don't want to go that far. But then where do we draw the line? Is it okay for Apple to put their logo on their stores? Is it okay for them to advertise a new iPhone on TV or in magazines? Or not? Or do you take a finer-grained approach and allow some kinds of ads but not others? Must an ad be purely informational with no music or flashy graphics/video?
I'm honestly not even clear on what the goal is with such a regime. How do you know when the law is working as intended or when it is failing to do so? Apple has succeeded in marketing themselves as an iconic fashion brand (right up there with LVMH, a European brand). Do you think such fashion brands should cease to exist? Why or why not?
What I am suggesting is to keep the markets and let corporations follow incentives to make the best products, while trying to limit these meta games. This thread shows an example where this is arguably already working. I am suggesting to do more of it, e.g. make corporations publish reports of how they are actually doing in that regard, maybe even as a sort of disclaimer next to their own branding efforts.
I just want our rules to be a little stricter when it comes to false advertising and fraud. Why should a corporation be allowed to say: "We care for communities in America." This is not true. They care for shareholder value. There should be a disclaimer like: "We care for our community. We have no independent proof to back that up. Our main objective as a for-profit is to maximize profits. We are making XX $ / year and have in the past moved our production facilities to the cheapest location."
I am exaggerating here and am not providing a finished solution, just trying to illustrate what I mean.
> But then where do we draw the line?
That is in fact tricky, but I think our society as whole should move a little closer to facts.
But even beyond that, most file formats have a bit of a header at the start of the file that declares the actual format of the file. Browsers already can understand that and use the correct render for a file without an extension.