Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • ranting begins ...

    AFAICT, the author of the piece you linked is mostly reiterating arguments made by David Heinemeier Hansson, the Rails guy. This just confirms for me that Rails is not all that, particularly when it comes to an app with a "real" schema, where by "real" I mean complex, as in many tables and many relationships between the tables.

    You work on Bricolage, so you know what dealing with a real schema is like, but most people develop apps with relatively simple data, AFAICT. In those cases, simpl
  • Maypole isn't limited to just simple schema - that is entirely defined by your model - if you want build a more complex schema its going to require more work than a trivial schema but thats unavoidable - using something like Tangram or DBIx::Class for your ORM should work fine so long as your model does what is asked of it by the Maypole Framework.

    In fact in upcoming releases we are working hard to make sure it extends and scales well to more complex schema and models. If you've come accross a limitation em
    --

    @JAPH = qw(Hacker Perl Another Just);
    print reverse @JAPH;
  • I posted a pointer to this on some forum today but I can't remember which... Anyway, I totally agree with you, and EVEN SCARIER than what Dave said is the guy who felt that the database should be storing all data without types, similar to SQLite (about halfway through the thread):

    Actually, I would prefer if all the values entered in the database would be of a single data type — text. This is because, at the end of the day, the data is mostly meant for human consumtion, and we consume it as text.

    R

  • You're right that this point is view is very worrying. It seems that "databases" is becoming one of those things that people expect to be easy to master because "you use them to built web sites - and all web stuff is easy, right?" So there large numbers of people out there building databases who have never heard of Ted Codd, the relational model or even normalisation. Last year I wrote about a particularly bad example [perl.org] I was cleaning up.

    I found a lot of flaky database knowledge in the Ruby on Rails book. It
    • In fairness, from what I can see, they're not trying to scale like that. Rails seems to be mostly concerned about the low end simplistic kind of stuff. You're going to run in to the limits of Active Record PDQ if you've a complex database you're trying to plug into. But that's exactly the same as Class::DBI. You've got to be aware of the tools you're using and what their limitations are.

      -Dom