Part of my point was that if your site is going to be 20 KLOC then why not use a framework that is aimed at building 20 KLOC large sites rather than one that is aimed at writing 200 line sites.
Flask is advertised as a micro framework. if you want to rebuild Django with it then sure you can, but I personally can't see why you'd want to.
Flask is used by Pinterest and LinkedIn, which I'm guessing are a touch more than 100 lines of code.
Flask is, of course, more powerful than bottle, and has less batteries included than Django. Saying Flask is good for 100 LOC sites is terrible advice, no matter which way you try to slice it. It isn't. It's widely-used and well-maintained.
Don't get me wrong, I like Django as well.
I've used Flask for single file sites with 10-250 lines. It's great (ish). What's bad about it? Your saying it's only good for writing large applications? How so?
Your contention is that it's only good for small sites. I'm saying it's good for any sized site as long as you actually know how to RTFD and program in Python.
Django is no different. Django falls apart spectacularly in the hands of people who can't program.
Re:Django 2.0 released
by thijsvandien on Saturday December 02, 2017 @06:37PM
(#15834972)
Does eventually needing a truck justify driving one when for now everything fits in a van? The structure Django imposes on you may get in the way while you're still experimenting.
The problem is that a lot of people writing Python web stacks don't know how to write Python at all, and no framework will save that shortcoming.