Alex Martelli wrote:
> Jeffrey Froman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alex Martelli wrote:
>>
>>> I've never seen an "object-relational mapping" (technical
>>> term for cruft that tries to avoid people having to learn and use SQL)
>>> which doesn't drive me into a murderous, foam-at-mouth rage in
Magnus Lycka schrieb:
> As I said, ORMs have their uses, but it seems to me that a reason for
> many people to use ORMs is to avoid having to properly understand the
> way relational databases work, and that means they will never use the
So is the reason for using Python for many people to avoid
Gregor Horvath wrote:
> Scott David Daniels schrieb:
>
>> Using a relational DBMS is most definitely _not_ premature optimization.
>> A relational system provides a way to store data so that it is later
>
> I did not mean that using a relational DBMS is premature optimization
> but not using a OR
Scott David Daniels schrieb:
> Using a relational DBMS is most definitely _not_ premature optimization.
> A relational system provides a way to store data so that it is later
I did not mean that using a relational DBMS is premature optimization
but not using a ORM because of performance considera
Gregor Horvath wrote:
>> But what you overlook is SQL's strength:
>>
>> SQL can be translated into _very_ efficient query plans w/o changing
>> the SQL. SQL's query optimizers (more properly, de-pessimizers) give
>
> Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
>
> On the top level of an
>
> But what you overlook is SQL's strength:
>
> SQL can be translated into _very_ efficient query plans w/o changing
> the SQL. SQL's query optimizers (more properly, de-pessimizers) give
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
On the top level of an appliciation the goal is to o
Agreed. Mine was hardly a complete list.
Another bit I lost is keeping data operations close to the database. I
am more likely to use multiple languages/frameworks over the same
database than change databases for the same application. I actually
prefer functions and procedures within the DB (even
Ravi Teja wrote:
>> ... I've never seen an "object-relational mapping" (technical term for
>> cruft that tries to avoid people having to learn and use SQL) which
>> doesn't drive me into a murderous, foam-at-mouth rage in a very
>> short time -- I *WANT* my SQL, I *LOVE* SQL, it's *WAY* more powerf
> For example, I've never seen an "object-relational mapping" (technical
> term for cruft that tries to avoid people having to learn and use SQL)
> which doesn't drive me into a murderous, foam-at-mouth rage in a very
> short time -- I *WANT* my SQL, I *LOVE* SQL, it's *WAY* more powerful
> and sui
I am presently looking at a commercial product called dbqwiksite. I
generates php code.
I know that sounds lame, but the demos were impressive.
If I could get the product to work like they show in the demos it would
be great.
It uses ODBC to connect to a mysql database; but I can't get it to wor
I am presently looking at a commercial product called dbqwiksite. I
generates php code.
I know that sounds lame, but the demos were impressive.
If I could get the product to work like they show in the demos it would
be great.
It uses ODBC to connect to a mysql database; but I can't get it to wor
Actually I recently went from a managed hosting to a virtual host via
XEN, it's been great value for the cost
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Steve Juranich wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> As far as hosting, I also know
>> where Zope/Plone hosting from 7.95 a month - although the host doesn't
>> list it on their ads, they do use and host it.
>
> Which host would this be? I'm currently exploring some options for getting
> a Zope
Jeffrey Froman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> > I've never seen an "object-relational mapping" (technical
> > term for cruft that tries to avoid people having to learn and use SQL)
> > which doesn't drive me into a murderous, foam-at-mouth rage in a very
> > short time -- I
Alex Martelli wrote:
> I've never seen an "object-relational mapping" (technical
> term for cruft that tries to avoid people having to learn and use SQL)
> which doesn't drive me into a murderous, foam-at-mouth rage in a very
> short time -- I WANT my SQL, I LOVE SQL, it's WAY more powerful
> and
ocssolutions.com offers hosting solutions and will host Zope
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
walterbyrd wrote:
>>You can bet it'll be plain old cgi - possibly with an outdated Pyton version.
>
> I think you are right. In practical terms, what does that mean? Will I
> not be able to use modules? Will I not be able to use frameworks?
It means that you will be limited to what can run with
walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ideally, I would like to be able to develop a database driven web-app,
> in much the same manner as I could develop an ms-access app. As much as
> I dislike msft, I have to admit, an ms-access app can be put together
> quickly, without any steep learning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As far as hosting, I also know
> where Zope/Plone hosting from 7.95 a month - although the host doesn't
> list it on their ads, they do use and host it.
Which host would this be? I'm currently exploring some options for getting
a Zope site hosted.
Thanks much.
--
Ste
As far as languages go, Python seems a far better choice than php or
perl based solutions. I haven't tried Ruby - so I can't comment.
The Zope framework for python has been remarkably productive for me
both with and wtihout plone(CMF modules and a look and feel on top of
Zope). The documentation
> You can bet it'll be plain old cgi - possibly with an outdated Pyton version.
I think you are right. In practical terms, what does that mean? Will I
not be able to use modules? Will I not be able to use frameworks?
> Which frameworks have you looked at ?
django, turbogears, cheetah, cherrypy,
walterbyrd wrote:
> Way back when, I got a lot of training and experience in highly
> structued software development. These days, I dabble with
> web-development, but I may become more serious.
>
> I consider php to be an abombination, the backward compatibility issues
> alone are reason enough t
walterbyrd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> I consider php to be an abombination, the backward compatibility issues
> alone are reason enough to make me hate it. Rail looks promising, but
> it's difficult to find inexpensive hosting that supports rails.
What's your budget? DreamHost offers Rai
Way back when, I got a lot of training and experience in highly
structued software development. These days, I dabble with
web-development, but I may become more serious.
I consider php to be an abombination, the backward compatibility issues
alone are reason enough to make me hate it. Rail looks
24 matches
Mail list logo
