On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 1:14 PM, Rob Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> That said, I find it's substantially more >>> complicated (versus complex) and difficult to use, esp if you have an SQL >>> background. You have to really jump through hoops to get some basic (in SQL) >>> stuff done, and only really recently the docs have got to the point where >>> you don't have to be a core developer to make full use of it. >> > > Although I dont have much of a background in SQL I couldn't disagree > more, I think it makes everything a lot easier. A lot of thought has > obviously gone in to the interface to make it really intuitive, a > great improvement on CDBI.
It definitely is a big improvement. I'm not knocking it hard, I use it in a project and don't regret it. Once you're into the territory of complex queries though it gets ugly, fast. I'd be curious the kinds of things you're doing with DBIC. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else but I suspect if you got good at SQL you'd find the same thing. While I appreciate it's possible to get DBIC to do it in a somewhat clunky way (bind => [$arg1, $arg2] is hardly too literate) it's not pretty or elegant. It _is_ pretty & elegant for quite a decent subset of SQL though. As I say I am impressed & it's not a big ding or anything. I don't understand the objection to having SQL in code. If I pull out data out of a hash I don't necessarily have to abstract that into some file elsewhere. Why should I do that if I'm pulling data out of a database? P > > I hate SQL amongst code unless its performance critical (at my work > its generally isn't) I like to keep it abstracted where ever possible. > > Rob > _______________________________________________ > BristolBathPM mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm > _______________________________________________ BristolBathPM mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.bristolbath.org/mailman/listinfo/bristolbathpm
