John Siracusa wrote:
On Tue, 03 Aug 2004 09:35:25 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann
That gains absolutely *no* functionality
It's a heck of a lot easier to subclass...
for the burden of loosing compatibility.
There's no reason the old interface couldn't continue to exist.
OK, I'll bite....
Hashrefs are declarative....SQL is declarative...
Methods are procedural.
I can imagine (even postulate ..see recent mad rantings RE embedded
SQL) a fully declarative perl-to-database I/F. I realize many
perl users seem hell bent on turning the language into Java-yuk-foo.
Please don't. If you're inclined for the same old
"I'll tell you what I want and how I want it and how to get it" i/f,
there are plenty of (IMHO misguided) DBIx's to help you get over your jones.
<rant>
Why do so many of you hate SQL so much ? I've seen some amazingly
intractable perl code (worse still C/C++/Java code) that purports to
"simplify databaase access". Unless you're dealing with the
"parts explosion" problem, SQL does a pretty good job,
and solves most problems, if folks would take a moment
to consider the declarative solution.
</rant>
As for me, give me a tie, and let declaration guide me....
(I promise, this is not a pseudonym for Fabian Pascal),
BTW: This probably belongs on dbi-users at this point..
A MAd DEclAratiVe,
Dean
