I know on the surface that it does, but Pyramid isn't ready for production as yet. Also, the secondary issue for me is that I had made a choice to go with Pylons, but that has effectively been abandoned (sorry for the strong word as I appreciate it will be 'maintained' but will never move forward from where it is, and my concern is that after investing considerable time/energy into our project that the same thing could happen. Thanks though - I appreciate that in some respects it does seem an easier choice. I suppose thats where RoR works - they have one main framework to choose from (and a good one) whereas with Python there are a lot.

Pyramid 1.0 final will be out before PyCon US (~ 2 months from now).

However, it bears saying that, so far, no alpha release of Pyramid has been bw incompat with the last in any way. As a result, I wouldn't be scared off much by "alpha" in its version designator, at least as an evaluator. The code in Pyramid has existed for almost 2 years now. Every release has 100% statement coverage via unit tests. An alpha of Pyramid is arguably much more stable than many "final" releases of other web frameworks.

Thanks. That's helped to clarify things much more than my own reading found. Maybe it would be a good idea to put something up on the various sites to signpost new people to?

Thanks again though. Looking forward to trying out Pyramid

Remember the bulk of Pyramid is repoze.bfg - which is 1.5+ years old and has 100% test coverage.

Pylons really hadn't had anything other than bugfixes in quite some time, and had some problems with stacked object proxies which would have required a fairly substantial rewrite. Whether you consider Pylons dead or just simply finished is a matter of semantics. I still think Pylons is an extremely capable platform and I don't think you should be afraid to touch it. There is still plenty of mindshare around for Pylons.