Re: perl

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/26]

From: Yoz Grahame
Subject: Re: perl
Date: 19:40 on 26 Dec 2006
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.

-- Yoz
There's stuff above here

Generated at 14:01 on 28 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52