3 ms·

I'm sorry if my comment struck negatively with you. The library has been very useful to me and teams Ive worked with in the past. In fact, I've lobbied for corp

I'm sorry if my comment struck negatively with you. The library has been very useful to me and teams Ive worked with in the past. In fact, I've lobbied for corporate sponsorship of your work a few times. Thank you. The problem I'm describing isn't really the ORM libraries' fault as its outside the scope (hah). Your library is great. Most of the trouble I see is where the ORM meets the web framework. I think that gets tricky for lower experience developers because it's fundamentally tricky in Python. What the scheduler (e.g. gunicorn) does and how it forks and how sessions are handled at the wsgi layer are where you have to be very careful. Django has brought that in scope and you haven't -- which is why thats a better wholistic webdev experience and SQLAlchemy is the more powerful ORM. With that said I stand by my comment having read the full changelog (commendably thorough btw). Unless you can afford to figure those things out as a team, it would behoove most web devs to reach for Django first.

zzzeek 6y ago
no worries, I'm pretty known for being reactive to comments of all kinds, it's both a feature and a bug. SQLAlchemy was never meant to be as "simple" as django but I just dont want people to be scared off of it; that said, I'm super glad everyone who uses django sticks with django because they would be very grumpy SQLAlchemy users. the idea is supposed to be, make a larger investment upfront, get a bigger payoff. it's a tough balloon to float which is why I'm always nosing around people's twitter threads.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  If you've got the best design in the long run there's nothing to worry about. That said, it takes a while to find it! And the target is always moving. 2.0 definitely looks like a step in the right direction. Can't wait to use it with psycopg3 and the latest Python. Thanks. ;-)
joshbuddy 6y ago
This exactly mirrors the situation where I work. They picked flask/sqlalchemy early on, the actual glue code is hard to get right, people were confused over the session api vs core api and problems ensue. As much as we want to tell people you should read docs carefully, libraries should make it hard to misuse and introduce footguns, and this is an aspect sqlalchemy maybe struggles with.

zzzeek 6y ago

no worries, I'm pretty known for being reactive to comments of all kinds, it's both a feature and a bug. SQLAlchemy was never meant to be as "simple" as django but I just dont want people to be scared off of it; that said, I'm super glad everyone who uses django sticks with django because they would be very grumpy SQLAlchemy users. the idea is supposed to be, make a larger investment upfront, get a bigger payoff. it's a tough balloon to float which is why I'm always nosing around people's twitter threads.

mixmastamyk 6y ago
If you've got the best design in the long run there's nothing to worry about. That said, it takes a while to find it! And the target is always moving. 2.0 definitely looks like a step in the right direction. Can't wait to use it with psycopg3 and the latest Python. Thanks. ;-)

joshbuddy 6y ago

This exactly mirrors the situation where I work. They picked flask/sqlalchemy early on, the actual glue code is hard to get right, people were confused over the session api vs core api and problems ensue. As much as we want to tell people you should read docs carefully, libraries should make it hard to misuse and introduce footguns, and this is an aspect sqlalchemy maybe struggles with.