4 ms·

To be fair, he didn't write the code you're linking to. Luigi has a lot of contributors. I was a pretty heavy contributor/user for years and I was never able to

To be fair, he didn't write the code you're linking to. Luigi has a lot of contributors. I was a pretty heavy contributor/user for years and I was never able to get the task history feature to work.

zzzeek 8y ago
sure. but seriously. "Can we just dispel with this myth about ORMs?" What myth? can you provide any evidence or argument of any kind? How about if I said, "Can we just dispel with this myth that Erik Bernhardsson has any idea what he is talking about"? (to make it clear, this would not be a fair statement either because i know nothing about this person) and just ended the blog post there. Because I actually looked at his own open source projects for evidence of this deep wisdom he has and found none. not a very high quality post.
- daveFNbuck 8y ago
  He provided an argument. It's the 4th paragraph of the blog post, ending with "and I end up with bloated higher level data classes rather than easy to understand tuples or dicts that contain the data in a dumb simple format that is trivial to introspect."
  - zzzeek 8y ago
    That is in fact not an argument about ORMs and especially not about DSLs, that would be an argument against object oriented programming overall. Where again, let's see the examples. When you write enough tuple business logic in a non-FP language you get into a new set of problems with code organization. And you still have to marshal those tuples in and out of SQL statements in a way that makes sense vs your transactional scope and there's a lot to think about there.
    - daveFNbuck 8y ago
      It's about how ORMs result in less clean code by forcing a clunky generic OOP paradigm on any DB interaction. You may not agree with this argument, but it is an argument.
      - zzzeek 8y ago
        one lazy sentence with no examples does not allow you to declare "Let’s dispel with the myth that ORMs make code cleaner. ". Make an argument, show examples, be specific. For example. I don't like Python's asyncio. I don't just blog, "can we just dispel with this myth that asyncio makes code faster?" and just bask in my upmods. I made a very well researched and tested argument and spent many hours making sure, if I was going to make a statement like "technology X that tens of thousands of you use every day is a myth", or more accurately "not quite as worthwhile as you might think", I took the time to thoroughly illustrate this: http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-and-databases/ http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-an... Whether or not people agree with what I wrote (though nobody seemed to really disagree much), I'm not just trolling for upmods, I'm making a tangible contribution to the subject. What this person posted is basically non-debatable because no debatable points were made. Those of us with a lot of time invested in DSLs and ORMs would prefer a real discussion with real things we can debate, not just who can rant more loudly. I can debate this blog post very simply that there's tens of thousands of developers who use DSLs and ORMs to great success every day and the burden of proof is on this poster to prove them all wrong. This is just a very low quality rant that appeals to base cheerleading instincts from whoever happens to agree with this person already, and I will choose the vast community of working software over this post in order to determine what exactly is a "myth".
        daveFNbuck 8y ago
        It wasn't one lazy sentence, it was a paragraph. I don't think he was claiming that you can't use DSLs or ORMs successfully. This is just a quick opinion piece. Not all writing needs to be a thoroughly researched debate defense. I personally didn't already agree with what he wrote, but there was enough in it to make me think about the topic a little more and shift more toward his position. I already know what ORM code and raw SQL calls look like without him providing examples.

To be fair, he didn't write the code you're linking to. Luigi has a lot of contributors. I was a pretty heavy contributor/user for years and I was never able to get the task history feature to work.

zzzeek 8y ago

sure. but seriously. "Can we just dispel with this myth about ORMs?" What myth? can you provide any evidence or argument of any kind? How about if I said, "Can we just dispel with this myth that Erik Bernhardsson has any idea what he is talking about"? (to make it clear, this would not be a fair statement either because i know nothing about this person) and just ended the blog post there. Because I actually looked at his own open source projects for evidence of this deep wisdom he has and found none. not a very high quality post.

daveFNbuck 8y ago
He provided an argument. It's the 4th paragraph of the blog post, ending with "and I end up with bloated higher level data classes rather than easy to understand tuples or dicts that contain the data in a dumb simple format that is trivial to introspect."
- zzzeek 8y ago
  That is in fact not an argument about ORMs and especially not about DSLs, that would be an argument against object oriented programming overall. Where again, let's see the examples. When you write enough tuple business logic in a non-FP language you get into a new set of problems with code organization. And you still have to marshal those tuples in and out of SQL statements in a way that makes sense vs your transactional scope and there's a lot to think about there.
  - daveFNbuck 8y ago
    It's about how ORMs result in less clean code by forcing a clunky generic OOP paradigm on any DB interaction. You may not agree with this argument, but it is an argument.
    - zzzeek 8y ago
      one lazy sentence with no examples does not allow you to declare "Let’s dispel with the myth that ORMs make code cleaner. ". Make an argument, show examples, be specific. For example. I don't like Python's asyncio. I don't just blog, "can we just dispel with this myth that asyncio makes code faster?" and just bask in my upmods. I made a very well researched and tested argument and spent many hours making sure, if I was going to make a statement like "technology X that tens of thousands of you use every day is a myth", or more accurately "not quite as worthwhile as you might think", I took the time to thoroughly illustrate this: http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-and-databases/ http://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-an... Whether or not people agree with what I wrote (though nobody seemed to really disagree much), I'm not just trolling for upmods, I'm making a tangible contribution to the subject. What this person posted is basically non-debatable because no debatable points were made. Those of us with a lot of time invested in DSLs and ORMs would prefer a real discussion with real things we can debate, not just who can rant more loudly. I can debate this blog post very simply that there's tens of thousands of developers who use DSLs and ORMs to great success every day and the burden of proof is on this poster to prove them all wrong. This is just a very low quality rant that appeals to base cheerleading instincts from whoever happens to agree with this person already, and I will choose the vast community of working software over this post in order to determine what exactly is a "myth".
      - daveFNbuck 8y ago
        It wasn't one lazy sentence, it was a paragraph. I don't think he was claiming that you can't use DSLs or ORMs successfully. This is just a quick opinion piece. Not all writing needs to be a thoroughly researched debate defense. I personally didn't already agree with what he wrote, but there was enough in it to make me think about the topic a little more and shift more toward his position. I already know what ORM code and raw SQL calls look like without him providing examples.