3 ms·
Most styleguides really do benefit from rationales. Just stating something ex cathedra sounds rather patronizing. Basic example would be the mandatory capitali
by mhd 8y ago
Most styleguides really do benefit from rationales. Just stating something ex cathedra sounds rather patronizing.
Basic example would be the mandatory capitalisation of keywords.
Or why collective nouns instead of plurals? Why file_system and not files? The latter would serve better to avoid the common "file_" prefix of the tables, never mind that "file system" is ambiguous.
As for EAV, the first question isn't "what other product should I use for this" but whether stuff is really schema-less in the first place. For some kind of reason, people are really scared of defining new tables and views or extending existing ones… (Only place where I personally ever had problems with that was with a very enterprisey structure and strict DBAs. ITIL requests for every DDL)
- ainar-g 8y ago>Most styleguides really do benefit from rationales. Just stating something ex cathedra sounds rather patronizing. The author kind of explained their justification in their blog post[1]: >It beggars belief how many readers claim to have read the guide and yet I still get messages asking for justifications. At the very top, the introductory paragraph clearly states that Celko’s book is the place to find in-depth discussion of each point. Discussions of justification have no place in a style guide anyway. Not sure I agree with this last point. [1] https://www.simonholywell.com/post/2016/12/sql-style-guide-misconceptions/#where-is-the-justification https://www.simonholywell.com/post/2016/12/sql-style-guide-m...