It sounds to me like you are saying “Django ORM should be better”, which is
true. But the entire point of SQL is that it’s a common database language. You
don’t know what it was like back in the day when every vendor had a different
language. Most queries that use a common feature set work fine
On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Yugal Jindle wrote:
> *Note :*
>
> - I know we have `Django ORM` already that keeps things database
> independent and converts to the database specific `SQL` queries.
> - Once things starts getting complicated it is preferred to write `raw
> SQL` queries for bet
I agree with Babatunde. I think it would be too much of a barrier to entry
and tries to solve some of the problems that the ORM/SQL in general solve
or are intended to solve (generalizability). I'd personally rather enhance
the ORM where necessary, or suggest that if you plan on switching between
d
IMO, 'fake sql' would be another layer of abstraction *like the the
ORM* over different databases that don't work the same way. The result
would be the same. Since the ORM works fine, the ORM could be improved
to cater for some of these more complex cases. It leaves using django
a matter of learnin
*Note :*
- I know we have `Django ORM` already that keeps things database
independent and converts to the database specific `SQL` queries.
- Once things starts getting complicated it is preferred to write `raw
SQL` queries for better efficiency.
- When you write `raw sql` queries your code ge
5 matches
Mail list logo
