Diez B. Roggisch wrote:
I don't read that out of the post, and it almost certainly is wrong, at
least on a general level. There isn't much above SQLAlchemy regarding
flexibility & power, so while simple cases might be simpler with other
ORMs, they often make more complicated ones impossible.
But again, I don't think that's the claim there.
Both ORMs and others have been described, by their authors, during the
PyCon in March 2009:
http://us.pycon.org/2009/conference/schedule/event/60/
By the way, this line
in web2py you can access legacy databases if tables have an existing unique
auto-increment field id and if this field is used for references
is a bit like saying "any color you like as long as it's black" and it's
not a light limitation. There wouldn't be much of an impedence mismatch
(*) if a numeric auto-increment primary key was enough for everybody.
Sure SQLAlchemy is more complex to master :-/
(*)
http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
