On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Nigel Hamilton wrote: > > A) a ridiculously flexible interface that looks sort of like SQL, except > > where it is SQL, except where it's only sort of like SQL, etc. > > > > B) a ridiculous profusion of classes, methods, or both. > > > > SQL has its place, and Alzabo merely provides a thin layer on top of it. > > > > Trying to jam a thick layer of OO-goodness over relational data is asking > > for a mess. OO has its place, but if your application is primarily about > > the database, I don't think that a heavy OO layer on top of that will do > > HI Dave, > > Totally agree. > > My general motto is "tiers eq tears" ... I've never seen > a really comfortable OO/SQL bridge. > > The OO part almost always dumbs down or hobbles the database. > > Group bys, order bys, multi-table selects, locking, SQL query > plans and index optimisation all rightfully belong to the database but are > an anathema to a simple OO/SQL bridge. > > While disks need to seek and spin ... relational databases will > have their place. I sometimes think of a world with unlimited RAM. It's > here that OO dreams really come true --- vast pools of objects with > hash/array look up speed etc.
I feel pretty much the same, and so gave a talk about this (and other things) at last year's perl conference. Slides are at http://axkit.org/docs/presentations/tpc2001/anydbd.axp/a.pdf -- <!-- Matt --> <:->Get a smart net</:->
