Hi Kashyap!
Thank you for posting many good examples on the mailing list, and
welcome to the PicoLisp world!
> There is a plethora of ORM systems such as ActiveRecords (in Ruby/Rails) or
> Microsoft EntityFramework and similar solutions in other languages where
> Objects are mapped to SQL DB
Thanks Mattias,
Yeah, intuitively, I do feel "symbols all the way down" makes Picolisp
uniquely at an advantageous position. It would be good to be equipped with
a way to articulate this advantage.
Regards,
Kashyap
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:28 AM Mattias Sundblad wrote:
> Hi Kashyap!
>
> Thank
Hi Kashyap,
I've a bit experience with ActiveRecord and some more with EntityFramework.
As said in the other responses, the big fundamental difference between
PicoLisp database architecture and ORMs is that in PicoLisp the
application layer and the database layer is the same layer, it is not
two
By the way, the often used the argument "ORM allows to switch from one
(SQL) database to another" is illusory.
In practice such a switch happens very rarely, and when it does it
usually still needs much debugging and changes to the existing
application because the different DBMS just work to
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 01:30:26PM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
>(de f (Names)
> (pilog
> (quote
> @Names Names
> @Gen (mapcan '((Nm) (list 'nm '+TagVal Nm)) Names)
> (select (@Item)
>((@Gen (v +Tag) itm))
>
Oops, wait!
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:56:56AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
>(de f (Names)
> (pilog
> (quote
> @Names Names
> @Gen (mapcan '((C) (list 'nm '+TagVal C)) Colors)
> (select (@Item)
>((@Gen (v +Tag) itm))
>
Hi Kashyap,
> Hurray!!!
:)
> Just to confirm if I've understood correctly - this solution is similar
> to (nm +CuSu @Sup (sup +Item) (itm +Pos) ord) from the sample app correct?
> Instead of (nm +CuSu @Sup) we have (nm +TagVal @Col1 nm +TagVal) - right?
Yes, similar. The +CuSu case does:
1.
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:45:23AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
>(de f (Names)
> (pilog
> (quote
> @Names Names
> @Gen (mapcan '((C) (list 'nm '+TagVal C)) Names)
> (select (@Item)
>((@Gen (v +Tag) itm))
>(lst
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 10:44:15AM +0100, Alexander Burger wrote:
> I would prepare the generator clauses as a Pilog variable, to build them at
> runtime, and then use the member/2 predicate in the filter clause to check for
> membership in the list of colors.
Could not resist :) This works:
Hi Alex,
There is a plethora of ORM systems such as ActiveRecords (in Ruby/Rails) or
Microsoft EntityFramework and similar solutions in other languages where
Objects are mapped to SQL DB records.
I'd love to know your thoughts about how PicoLisp's approach is
similar/different from them.
Thank you so much Alex,
This works for me!
I think having the filter in lisp still lets us take
advantage of +QueryChart's efficiency over large sets right?
Regards,
Kashyap
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 4:37 AM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:45:23AM +0100, Alexander Burger
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:26:01AM -0800, C K Kashyap wrote:
> I think having the filter in lisp still lets us take
> advantage of +QueryChart's efficiency over large sets right?
Yes, exactly. And it is faster than pure Pilog ;)
☺/ A!ex
--
UNSUBSCRIBE:
Super!
Regards,
Kashyap
On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 8:39 AM Alexander Burger
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 08:26:01AM -0800, C K Kashyap wrote:
> > I think having the filter in lisp still lets us take
> > advantage of +QueryChart's efficiency over large sets right?
>
> Yes, exactly. And it is
14 matches
Mail list logo
