4 ms·
> ActiveRecord beats this, since the code ends up more readable It's subjective and I tend to disagree. Especially for very simple and very complex queries. A
by ggregoire 6y ago
> ActiveRecord beats this, since the code ends up more readable
It's subjective and I tend to disagree. Especially for very simple and very complex queries.
Also, unless you are a following a "code-first" approach and doing all your schema migrations through the ORM, you have to redefine your tables, columns and relationships a second time and keep them up-to-date with every change, which is a huge hassle.
Obviously if your app is a simple CRUD app, might be simpler to just use Rails/Django/Symfony with an ORM and embrace the code-first approach.
- viklove 6y agoRails has very robust and well documented generators if you find it's a lot of work to create the migration file and the model file when you're changing the schema (I usually just create them manually though). It's a pretty standard workflow for rails developers, and given that rails is used by a lot of companies that are not "simple CRUD apps" (like AirBnB, Stripe, etc.) I'd say it's definitely very useful in many scenarios. In fact, I'd argue that the "code-first" approach as you call it is actually more useful, because rails gives you bindings for before/after commit hooks, validators that aren't supported by SQL, etc. > Also, unless you are a following a "code-first" approach and doing all your schema migrations through the ORM I've literally never heard of a rails team migrating their DBs manually. Everyone uses ActiveRecord because it's a joy to use and very well supported and documented.