ruby ORM

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Databases have a wealth of logic, elegance and functionality. Slapping
them in the crude harness of ORMs is a most unfortunate and regressive
trend.

On the contrary, ORMs let people utilize this wealth of domain knowledge in
SQL databases without having to touch the abysmal puddle of vomit that is
SQL, and using familiar object interfaces through metalinguistic
abstraction.

ORMs rock, and they're a stepping stone towards a future where distributed
"NoSQL" data stores will be a satisfactory replacement for the dinosaurs
that are SQL databases.

That said, I still use MySQL as our only database.

 

[Kevin]

On the contrary, ORMs let people utilize this wealth of domain knowledge in
SQL databases without having to touch the abysmal puddle of vomit that is
SQL, and using familiar object interfaces through metalinguistic
abstraction.

ORMs rock, and they're a stepping stone towards a future where distributed
"NoSQL" data stores will be a satisfactory replacement for the dinosaurs
that are SQL databases.

That said, I still use MySQL as our only database.

SQL isn't necessarily abysmal it just does not lend itself to the kinds
of things application developers need to do in the application layer.
SQL is very nice as long as you don't try to do things it was not made
for. Not that SQL as a language is not in need of improvements. The
way some queries *don't* work like one would expect when you apply a
range is one such thing.

 

[Tony Arcieri]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

SQL isn't necessarily abysmal... SQL is very nice as long as you don't try
to do things it was not made for.

Strongly disagree... as far as a declarative query language goes, something
like LINQ is really what SQL should've been. SQL might as well be FLOW-MATIC

 

[Mike Stephens]

I was thinking about this last night and it's part of a belief I have
that you reuse powerful facilities available to you rather than imitate
them or bodge them into Ruby. That's how scripting languages started -
simple programming interfaces to applications, operating systems etc.

If you want to script a web site then don't struggle with Ruby-like
libraries, run Internet Explorer and script its model. Nothing you can
download from rubyforge is ever going to be as big, sophisticated and
tested. Similarly with spreadsheets - Excel is on your computer, why
mess with anything less? Fire up win32ole and the World is your oyster.

 

[Rimantas Liubertas]

I was thinking about this last night and it's part of a belief I have

that you reuse powerful facilities available to you rather than imitate
them or bodge them into Ruby. That's how scripting languages started -
simple programming interfaces to applications, operating systems etc.

I am pretty sure that's not how Ruby started.

If you want to script a web site then don't struggle with Ruby-like
libraries, run Internet Explorer and script its model.

What does it even mean?

Nothing you can
download from rubyforge is ever going to be as big, sophisticated and
tested.

As buggy? IE is least capable. We have open source mozilla, open
source Webkit, why IE?

Similarly with spreadsheets - Excel is on your computer, why

mess with anything less? Fire up win32ole and the World is your oyster.

Excel is not on my computer. And neither it is on my server. And win32ole
won't fire, because I am on OS X.


Regards,
Rimantas

 

[Johnneylee Rollins]

I was thinking about this last night and it's part of a belief I have
that you reuse powerful facilities available to you rather than imitate
them or bodge them into Ruby. That's how scripting languages started -
simple programming interfaces to applications, operating systems etc.

I understand that you might not be capable or want to rewrite things,
but where in this whole message is anything powerful referenced?

If you want to script a web site then don't struggle with Ruby-like
libraries, run Internet Explorer and script its model. Nothing you can
download from rubyforge is ever going to be as big, sophisticated and
tested. Similarly with spreadsheets - Excel is on your computer, why
mess with anything less? Fire up win32ole and the World is your oyster.

This didn't exactly make sense to me, but you're welcome to develop
for IE using whatever languages you'd like.

As for me and my house, we will serve the rubies.

~Johnneylee

 

[Mike Stephens]

Rimantas Liubertas wrote in post #965923:
And

win32ole
won't fire, because I am on OS X.

I think we all understand that if you're on different platforms you have
to translate what I said. It would be quite pointless for me to start
listing all software on all platforms. Normally people know this.

 

[Richard Conroy]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Rimantas Liubertas wrote in post #965923:
And
I think we all understand that if you're on different platforms you have
to translate what I said. It would be quite pointless for me to start
listing all software on all platforms. Normally people know this.

Hi I use Ubuntu, can you tell me where to find the IE script interpreter for
Ubuntu? I looked for it on the Microsoft site, but all I found were
references to a web browser.

 

[John Morrice]

If you want to script a web site then don't struggle with Ruby-like

libraries, run Internet Explorer and script its model. Nothing you can
download from rubyforge is ever going to be as big, sophisticated and
tested. Similarly with spreadsheets - Excel is on your computer, why
mess with anything less? Fire up win32ole and the World is your
oyster.

Thanks!

I'm really excited about scripting Excel with Ruby, because I
currently use a legacy system which involves injuring myself with a
hammer

Johnny

 

[Mike Stephens]

Richard Conroy wrote in post #965936:

Hi I use Ubuntu, can you tell me where to find the IE script interpreter
for
Ubuntu? I looked for it on the Microsoft site, but all I found were
references to a web browser.

I guess you must be new to computing. Microsoft is a big company in
Redmond. Their stuff is the most widely used by far but has limited
cross compatibility. Ubuntu is made by another company not based in
Redmond. You have to use other applications on it, so ignore any remarks
about Excel and as regards a browser, with eg WATIR I suggest you use
Firefox - http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/

 

[Richard Conroy]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Richard Conroy wrote in post #965936:

I guess you must be new to computing. Microsoft is a big company in
Redmond. Their stuff is the most widely used by far but has limited
cross compatibility. Ubuntu is made by another company not based in
Redmond. You have to use other applications on it, so ignore any remarks
about Excel and as regards a browser, with eg WATIR I suggest you use
Firefox - http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/firefox/

So where do I get the IE script interpreter for Ubuntu? Do I have to compile
it form source? Its confusing that they named a browser the same name. It
makes it very hard to search for.

 

[John Morrice]

So where do I get the IE script interpreter for Ubuntu? Do I have to

compile it form source? Its confusing that they named a browser the
same name. It makes it very hard to search for.

Use Wine to run Windows programs on Ubuntu.

This bickering is tiresome to read. I feel like an bitter nova-monkey.

Scripting Excel fills me with existential dread; but Mike is
trying to help, by dispensing Windows tips. Why must we drive him
away?

Johnny

P.S. Ubuntu sucks! Where is /etc/make.conf?

 

[Phillip Gawlowski]

I was thinking about this last night and it's part of a belief I have
that you reuse powerful facilities available to you rather than imitate
them or bodge them into Ruby. That's how scripting languages started -
simple programming interfaces to applications, operating systems etc.

While Ruby is a scripting language, too, it does not follow that it
has the same origin as the first scripting language that evolved
(which would that be, anyway? sh? Something even older?).

If you want to script a web site then don't struggle with Ruby-like
libraries, run Internet Explorer and script its model.

I want, nay, need, a Ruby-like interface to IE, though. Nothing is as
annoying as mixing a dozen paradigms across the board.

Also: I'd script WebKit with V8 support. It's fast, and cross-platform.

Nothing you can
download from rubyforge is ever going to be as big, sophisticated and
tested.

There is one good thing about the UNIX culture: "Programs should do
one thing, and do it well." The Ruby community soaked that up, and
applied it to libraries.

And with TDD/BDD/testing in general, your point about testing becomes
moot. Not to mention that, if a gem is open source, I can always fork
it and keep it going, instead of being beholden to one single entity.
Ain't that right, Oracle?

Similarly with spreadsheets - Excel is on your computer, why
mess with anything less? Fire up win32ole and the World is your oyster.

You are serious, I'm afraid. So: Excel is good, for a spreadsheet
program. But can it solve linear equations? Inverse a matrix (for the
curious: It can, but boy it ain't pretty)?

Not to mention that you have to rely on Excel being correct when, say,
importing CSV, or exporting TSV. Which you can't.

Also: Excel isn't necessarily installed on a computer, just like IE.

Last but not least: Excel only was possible because VisiCalc was
first, and because Lotus 1-2-3 kept the competition going. IOW:
Applying your "DRM" "principle" to Excel: Don't Repeat VisiCorp.

Wake up, and smell the world beyond what Dell sold you, Mike.

--
Phillip Gawlowski

Though the folk I have met,
(Ah, how soon!) they forget
When I've moved on to some other place,
There may be one or two,
When I've played and passed through,
Who'll remember my song or my face.

 

[Mike Stephens]

If you do use Windows I really recommend reading
http://rubyonwindows.blogspot.com/

Orchestrating all these rich and hugely powerful applications (eg
putting all your Itunes items in formatted spreadsheets) just seems such
an exciting way to use Ruby, generally speaking with not many lines of
code, because you are leveraging (I'm English really) all the work of
many other programmers.

I'm assuming that for every Windows thing I mention there is an exact
analogue in the Linux and Mac worlds. I'm not supporting Windows itself,
just the principle of reusing software.

 

[Richard Conroy]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

This bickering is tiresome to read. I feel like an bitter nova-monkey.

Scripting Excel fills me with existential dread; but Mike is
trying to help, by dispensing Windows tips. Why must we drive him
away?

Nah, he is trolling. Hence I am baiting him. But I am too busy to keep this
up.

 

[Stu]

Steve Ballmer? Is that you? Hows that monoculture working out?

 

[Ryan Davis]

I was thinking about this last night and it's part of a belief I have
that you reuse powerful facilities available to you rather than imitate
them or bodge them into Ruby.

What does this have to do with the "ORM's Don't Do It" thread?

Don't thread hijack. Man up and hit "new message".

 

[Mike Stephens]

Ryan Davis wrote in post #966039:

What does this have to do with the "ORM's Don't Do It" thread?

Don't thread hijack. Man up and hit "new message".

This is to do with a current trend - domain specific languages.

You can try and write applications in a single language. ORMs try and
make relational databases look like Ruby.

The alternate view is to say an application should use a set of
different languages each optimal for the task at hand.

So for database tasks, which include manipulation of large sets, sharing
of data, replication etc, you should be happy to use SQL or other
database languages and not try and shoe horn them into Ruby, at least
without some very clear justification.

Typically Ruby applications accept regular expressions, HTML, CSS, Rails
and number of other DSLs -why have a hang up about SQL?

I am extending that principle to say other applications are just as
valid candidates for you to use in your solutions.

If a problem looks like a spreadsheet ie has one or a series of two
dimensional
arrays with positional significance, you should consider whether a
spreadsheet application might more naturally express your algoritm.

 

[Michal Suchanek]

What does this have to do with the "ORM's Don't Do It" thread?

Bogus arguments by MS devs were used to support the "ORMs Don't Do It" ?

... but everything is connected.

Thanks

Michal