3 ms·
But it is true, much much more often than you probably realize. Just look at your tables and think about how repetitive they are. The reason you can't come up w
by feoren 3y ago
But it is true, much much more often than you probably realize. Just look at your tables and think about how repetitive they are. The reason you can't come up with a lot of "column-based" (as you put it, which is still narrow-minded IMO) operations is because you've never looked for them before. Of course you haven't: you've been stuck in the traditional mode where such things are basically impossible.
Do most of your tables have Name / Description type fields? Here's some "column-based operations": Allow translation of everything in your database. Generate natural-sounding text in a report, inserting these names and descriptions (from multiple different tables, of course). Free-text search of all your important database concepts. Detect similar names to the one the user is wanting to add, to prevent duplication. Clean whitespace. That's five off the top of my head.
Do most of your tables have Archived / Status / Soft-delete type fields? Allow a user to archive a record. Choose whether to include archived records in a query or not. Delete archived records after X days.
Do most of your tables have Comments fields? Allow multiple comments. Track who made a comment and when. Track responses to comments.
Do most of your tables track who last modified the record? Track all modifications. Show a list of recent modifications to any records.
The list goes on and on and on. You call these "column-based operations", which again, is short-sighted. They're more like "concern-based operations". And it turns out everything is a cross-cutting concern. You're shooting this idea down without nearly understanding it.
- feoren 3y ago[flagged]
- AdieuToLogic 3y ago> Imagine being in such a state of mind that you read the above comment and downvote it! Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading. source: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- feoren 3y agoI don't see that as disallowing "for those who disagree with me: what do you disagree with, exactly?" Isn't that a reasonable question? Besides, isn't downvoting someone for nonsensical, petty reasons (and leaving no response as to why, of course) at least as harmful to the overall discussion as referring to those downvotes?
- loup-vaillant 3y ago> "for those who disagree with me: what do you disagree with, exactly?" Isn't that a reasonable question? It's a hopeless one. People who downvote generally think you're not worth actually answering. Also note that heated language often gets automatically downvoted. And with few exceptions ("eating babies is bad"), one sided opinions tend to be less popular than anything that appears "balanced". It's especially tough if your one sided opinion is attacking a popular practice.
- AdieuToLogic 3y agoI have not down-voted any of your submissions. Instead, I replied with the above to help explain why you were experiencing what you have. > Besides, isn't downvoting someone for nonsensical, petty reasons (and leaving no response as to why, of course) at least as harmful to the overall discussion as referring to those downvotes? I would imagine so. However, the culture here AFAIK is to down/up vote as one sees fit and not provide an explanation of same. HTH
- feoren 3y agoFor those who disagree, please give an example of a domain that is devoid of important "concern-based" operations.