On 12/08/2014 21:00, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On 12 August 2014 20:21:03 CEST, Volker Armin Hemmann > <volkerar...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> Am 12.08.2014 um 16:10 schrieb J. Roeleveld: >>> On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 03:38:15 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: >>>> On 12/08/2014 15:28, J. Roeleveld wrote: >>>>> On 12 August 2014 14:06:07 CEST, Alan McKinnon >> <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>>>> On 12/08/2014 11:10, Mick wrote: >>>>>>> I recall the devs explicitly stating early enough in the KDE4 >>>>>> development that >>>>>> >>>>>>> sqlite is not man enough for the job and advising everyone to >> move >>>>>> over to >>>>>> >>>>>>> mysql. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Someone was looking at postgresql as an alternative to mysql, but >> I'm >>>>>> not sure >>>>>> >>>>>>> that this would bring any benefit. >>>>>> pg is a fine database, but for this use will always be a 2nd class >>>>>> citizen. Most users will already have mysql installed, or will be >>>>>> willing to install it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The number of folks with pg and without mysql will probably be >> small >>>>> Not necessarily. >>>>> People who care about databases actually supporting SQL properly >> and >>>>> performing properly will prefer PostgreSQL. >>>>> >>>>> I don't like to be forced to run a MySQL instance as well. It's >> often the >>>>> laziness of developers that causes the difficulty of supporting a >>>>> different database when they started with MySQL. If you start with >> a >>>>> different one, like PostgrSQL, supporting different database >> engines is >>>>> very simple. >>>> I don't think you read what I said. >>> Sorry, didn't read the below in what you put. >>> >>>> I didn't say postgresql shouldn't be supported, I said it would >> always >>>> end up being a second class citizen as the number of people who'd be >>>> happy with mysql will vastly outnumber the number of people who >> highly >>>> desire postgresql. So, logically, a postgresql driver in this case >> will >>>> probably just bitrot away. Whihc nicely explains the likely reason >> why >>>> that driver is not there. >>> It wouldn't bitrot away as there would be people willing to keep it >> working, >>> provided it wouldn't require a MySQL -> SQL translator to be kept >> up-to-date. >>> >>>> People like yourself who care about databases are very much in the >>>> minority of users, even on Linux. Most users across the boards just >>>> don't give a shit. Them's the breaks. >>> Users never care about what they install. I just wish the majority of >> >>> developers would actually be willing to follow some simple guidelines >> to make >>> it actually possible to others to write and maintain the drivers to >> connect to >>> different databases. >>> >>> Several attempts have been made by people to add support for >> different >>> databases to various projects. I've tried to do it myself on >> occasion, but >>> even when patches are accepted by upstream, they get broken by >> upstream at a >>> future release again because of the bad design that is often employed >> by lazy >>> developers. >>> >>> -- >>> Joost >>> >>> >> wasn't qtsql once supposed to that? > > If a framework like qtsql is used, swapping the database is easy. > > Most developers seem to prefer to reinvent the wheel and often come up with > something that vaguely resembles a circle and is held together with a mixture > of glue and duck tape.
I blame php and others of it's ilk. The good thing about php is that everyone and their dog can knock out running code. The bad thing about php is that they do. Substitute mysql and bash if you will and tweak the content to suit - it all works out the same. Sensible languages (like, oh I dunno - python maybe?) have this trick about them - you have to work hard to write awful code. You also have to work hard to write awesome code, but if you just follow the book you usually end up with acceptable code. I will refrain from commenting on perl. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
