[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/26]
On 12/26/06, A. Pagaltzis <pagaltzis@xxx.xx> wrote: > > Errm, right. That's why noone on the mailing lists uses anything > but TT2 and DBIC, why the beginner's tutorials don't mention any > other options, and why inquiries about these two tend to get > answered very quickly. Wasn't the case last time I checked, which I admit to have been over a year ago. Back then, it was "Catalyst's great because it lets you choose either TT2 or HTML::Mason or HTML::Template! To work out which you want, consider [... INSANE ROBOT MONKEY SPEAK...]" Also, the module documentation mostly consisted of "Er... this bit coming soon!" which I wouldn't have minded if the publicity machine hadn't already been turned on. > Of course, it's better to switch to a system where the "ORM" is > built by people who say multi-column primary keys are bad for you > and foreign keys are pointless. That's "opinionated". Like that > certain "RDBMS" whose developers were also "opinionated", I guess, > and used to very publically state that transactions are silly > (and who needs subselects anyway?). Hate seconded. I certainly don't wish to imply that RoR doesn't have buckets of hate, though I don't have enough experience with it to know where the hate lies. As for that "RDBMS", I was one of those laughing the loudest when the hurried work on those silly transactions meant that the previous world-beating benchmarks were dragged down to the level of other products with considerably more sensible designs. With version 5 they may actually get up to the feature set of a 15-year-old version of Oracle, though only by merging with another similarly-aged product (SAPDB). They'll still need to work on those horrid "reliability" and "data resilience" features that, for some reason, people keep demanding. -- YozThere's stuff above here
Generated at 14:01 on 28 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52