4 ms·

Django has loads of goodies, but for me, by far, the ORM is my favorite part. RDB managment is the biggest snorefest in all of software development. There are

by rtpg 13y ago

Django has loads of goodies, but for me, by far, the ORM is my favorite part. RDB managment is the biggest snorefest in all of software development. There are some times where you have to figure out some crazy select or whatever, but for the most part it's annoying, easy to break, and it takes forever. Django lets me not think about it at all (granted, I'm not writing crazy search things either). When I started trying out Play Framework (for Scala, because I love type checking) I was absolutely shocked at the lack of an ORM. DB managment is the most boilerplate-y aspect of writing some CRUD, and Play decides not to help you with it. Their arguments are about "control" and how somehow "SQL is the best DSL" (http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.0.1/ScalaAnorm http://www.playframework.com/documentation/2.0.1/ScalaAnorm). >val id: Int = SQL("insert into City(name, country) values ({name}, {country}") .on("Cambridge", "New Zealand").executeInsert() Who could possibly think this "DSL" is 'better' than something like >City("Cambridge","New Zealand").save() /endrant I really like ORMs, and django has the distinction of having the best ORM in my book. I sincerely hope Django would never be reduced to Flask, because I care a lot more about having DB management work without me ripping my hair out than having routes or being able to put everything in one file. EDIT: for context, I don't ever have to do complicated things with databases, mainly tedious ones, which is probably why my vision of the world might be slightly different than yours.

rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Who could possibly think this "DSL" is 'better' than something like >City("Cambridge","New Zealand").save() I had no idea that New Zealand was a city! Can I ask how the cities of Cambridge and New Zealand are related, though? Is one like the billing city and the other the shipping city?
- eurleif 13y ago
  So use keyword arguments if you really find that so confusing: >City(name="Cambridge", country="New Zealand").save() Doesn't change the point about SQL.
  - rmrfrmrf 13y ago
    Your "fix" doesn't make sense. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a dev that's looking at OP's code for the first time. You're telling me that I have to sift through the codebase (which I might not even have complete access to) to figure out the argument order of a poorly named entity, just so that I can go and add keyword arguments to each place I work with ORM code? So now you have me going and editing tested, working code just for my personal preference and digging through code that I may or may not be authorized to view. Do you have any other best practices to share?
    - rtpg 13y ago
      Couldn't that argument be used about any function that has multiple values? Besides, keyword arguments do solve the problem. Also, correctly named variables ( City(city_name,country_name).save() ) and , if need be, some comments all solve this issue.
    - mercurial 13y ago
      > Your "fix" doesn't make sense. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a dev that's looking at OP's code for the first time. You're telling me that I have to sift through the codebase (which I might not even have complete access to) to figure out the argument order of a poorly named entity, just so that I can go and add keyword arguments to each place I work with ORM code? Spoken like someone who never had to deal with recordsets of 40 different values, accessed by position, passed around various functions... ORMs can be a problem, in the sense that complex queries may be harder or impossible to express, and there can be a cost in terms of performance. Snark over keyword arguments, which are completely orthogonal to ORMs, is both rude and misplaced.
    - Daishiman 13y ago
      You'll be looking at the code for a first time just once; you want to optimize for the guy who spends a nontrivial amount of time on code. Furthermore, ORM queries a much more readable, and the OP's example is bad; Django ORM queries use keyword arguments all the time.
orf 13y ago
While I disagree that the ORM is amazing (its really really annoying when you need something it doesn't do) Django models on a whole are awesome. For me CRUD stuff is the most boring and generally involves a lot of boilerplate - but after you define a model you can add CRUD functionality with pretty much zero effort. Just define some URL's and a form class (the fields are inferred from the model automatically), that's it. If you like ORM's check out SQLAlchemy, it is pretty damn awesome.
- rtpg 13y ago
  I did run into some issues at one point (relating to not being able to use computed columns in a later unique call), which was slightly disappointing. But I feel it does what a framework should : solves 95% of the cases well, and gives a backdoor for the other 5% (the "extra" query). I might be heavily influenced on the generally good experiences I had with the models too though. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.
dragonwriter 13y ago
I think its better for non-trivial apps, where you isolating the database code properly in a separate module using SQL, and then, say, controller or event-handler or whatever code (depending on the precise architecture), you make calls into that code with a good communicative interface. ORMs often make stuff that is already easy a little easier, but get in the way when you need to do something less simple.
jbeja 13y ago
Is not that amazing. You talk like if you have never use a ORM in your life before Django's one.
hcarvalhoalves 13y ago
Interesting. Having worked with Django for 5 years, I find the ORM is the weakest component. There's no way to express trivial things like a GROUP BY clause, and falling back to raw SQL goes downhill fast, because the result object doesn't have an interface compatible with Queryset.
- lhc- 13y ago
  Ive actually found the annotate framework can do most primitive GROUP BY queries (and in the next release or two will gain a lot more power, as its a big focus). Additionally, many of the other weird queries I need can be expresset with the queryset.extra() command, which means I get to keep working with querysets. All this support is only a few versions old though, so 5 years ago it definitely was much worse.
coldtea 13y ago
>Who could possibly think this "DSL" is 'better' than something like People that hate leaky abstractions. People that understand that having the full power of SQL is better than a mediating layer -- as your needs get more evolved than inserting a simple row. People that are not afraid to learn SQL, and know that it's exactly a DSL built for relational data. People that trust an industry standard DSL more than some ad-hoc DSL built on top of it. People that know they can reuse the very same SQL across many different contexts, from their code in multiple languages to the rdbms command line client itself, whereas code for an ORM not so much.
- Daishiman 13y ago
  > People that hate leaky abstractions. SQL is already a leaky abstraction over the DBMS system's particular optimizations, or haven't you heard about people rewriting queries for Postgres or Oracle because of the engine's peculiarities? > People that understand that having the full power of SQL is better than a mediating layer -- as your needs get more evolved than inserting a simple row. There's nothing incompatible between using SQL for that 2% of cases and an ORM for the rest > People that are not afraid to learn SQL, and know that it's exactly a DSL built for relational data. I don't think anyone's afraid of SQL, but I sure as hell would be afraid of maintaining hundreds of plaintext SQL queries every time I add a new column. > People that trust an industry standard DSL more than some ad-hoc DSL built on top of it. All SQL implementations have ad-hoc additions that are platform-specific, and most ORMs work pretty damn well. > People that know they can reuse the very same SQL across many different contexts, from their code in multiple languages to the rdbms command line client itself, whereas code for an ORM not so much. This is BS. I have to touch a substantially larger amount of code when refactoring SQL than when touch ORM queries. Seriously, have you even used a decent ORM?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >SQL is already a leaky abstraction over the DBMS system's particular optimizations, or haven't you heard about people rewriting queries for Postgres or Oracle because of the engine's peculiarities? Which doesn't detract from my argument. Since leaky abstractions are bad why on earth would you double or triple them, building another abstraction (ORM) on the first one (SQL)? >There's nothing incompatible between using SQL for that 2% of cases and an ORM for the rest For serious development you'll find it's not just "2% of cases". YMMV. And again, there is something incompatible: certain ORMS make it difficult or prevent it altogether, and even if they allow it you end with a hybrid ORM/SQL codebase. >I don't think anyone's afraid of SQL I've met plenty of people who do. Some even think it's alien, the same way some people wouldn't touch LISP syntax with a bargepole. >but I sure as hell would be afraid of maintaining hundreds of plaintext SQL queries every time I add a new column If you need to do that, then you're doing it wrong. >All SQL implementations have ad-hoc additions that are platform-specific, and most ORMs work pretty damn well. "Pretty damn well"? As in generating slow ass queries, needing 300 pages of documentation (I'm thinking of Hibernate) for stuff you can do in 5 minutes in SQL, etc? Here's a gem from Django's 1.6 release notes (that somebody praised its ORM in the comments above): "The Model.save() method now tries to directly UPDATE the database if the instance has a primary key value. Previously SELECT was performed to determine if UPDATE or INSERT were needed". >This is BS. I have to touch a substantially larger amount of code when refactoring SQL than when touch ORM queries. Have you even tried to understand what it says? You can take your SQL and use it in another language, or in the DB CLI etc. Your ORM code is tied to your original codebase. No using SQL Alchemy if you switch to Java. >Seriously, have you even used a decent ORM? I've used SQL Alchemy, Hibernate and Django's ORM. Never found a decent one. But I know that connect-the-dots, Visual Basic style developers swear by them.
tethis 13y ago
There certainly are ORMs available with Play! I'm using one called Activate (http://activate-framework.org/ http://activate-framework.org/) in a few of my latest projects and it's really simplified things. There's also Squeryl, ReactiveMongo, Slick...

by rtpg 13y ago

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Who could possibly think this "DSL" is 'better' than something like >City("Cambridge","New Zealand").save() I had no idea that New Zealand was a city! Can I ask how the cities of Cambridge and New Zealand are related, though? Is one like the billing city and the other the shipping city?

eurleif 13y ago
So use keyword arguments if you really find that so confusing: >City(name="Cambridge", country="New Zealand").save() Doesn't change the point about SQL.
- rmrfrmrf 13y ago
  Your "fix" doesn't make sense. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a dev that's looking at OP's code for the first time. You're telling me that I have to sift through the codebase (which I might not even have complete access to) to figure out the argument order of a poorly named entity, just so that I can go and add keyword arguments to each place I work with ORM code? So now you have me going and editing tested, working code just for my personal preference and digging through code that I may or may not be authorized to view. Do you have any other best practices to share?
  - rtpg 13y ago
    Couldn't that argument be used about any function that has multiple values? Besides, keyword arguments do solve the problem. Also, correctly named variables ( City(city_name,country_name).save() ) and , if need be, some comments all solve this issue.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    > Your "fix" doesn't make sense. I'm looking at this from the perspective of a dev that's looking at OP's code for the first time. You're telling me that I have to sift through the codebase (which I might not even have complete access to) to figure out the argument order of a poorly named entity, just so that I can go and add keyword arguments to each place I work with ORM code? Spoken like someone who never had to deal with recordsets of 40 different values, accessed by position, passed around various functions... ORMs can be a problem, in the sense that complex queries may be harder or impossible to express, and there can be a cost in terms of performance. Snark over keyword arguments, which are completely orthogonal to ORMs, is both rude and misplaced.
  - Daishiman 13y ago
    You'll be looking at the code for a first time just once; you want to optimize for the guy who spends a nontrivial amount of time on code. Furthermore, ORM queries a much more readable, and the OP's example is bad; Django ORM queries use keyword arguments all the time.

orf 13y ago

While I disagree that the ORM is amazing (its really really annoying when you need something it doesn't do) Django models on a whole are awesome. For me CRUD stuff is the most boring and generally involves a lot of boilerplate - but after you define a model you can add CRUD functionality with pretty much zero effort. Just define some URL's and a form class (the fields are inferred from the model automatically), that's it. If you like ORM's check out SQLAlchemy, it is pretty damn awesome.

rtpg 13y ago
I did run into some issues at one point (relating to not being able to use computed columns in a later unique call), which was slightly disappointing. But I feel it does what a framework should : solves 95% of the cases well, and gives a backdoor for the other 5% (the "extra" query). I might be heavily influenced on the generally good experiences I had with the models too though. Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

dragonwriter 13y ago

I think its better for non-trivial apps, where you isolating the database code properly in a separate module using SQL, and then, say, controller or event-handler or whatever code (depending on the precise architecture), you make calls into that code with a good communicative interface. ORMs often make stuff that is already easy a little easier, but get in the way when you need to do something less simple.

jbeja 13y ago

Is not that amazing. You talk like if you have never use a ORM in your life before Django's one.

hcarvalhoalves 13y ago

Interesting. Having worked with Django for 5 years, I find the ORM is the weakest component. There's no way to express trivial things like a GROUP BY clause, and falling back to raw SQL goes downhill fast, because the result object doesn't have an interface compatible with Queryset.

lhc- 13y ago
Ive actually found the annotate framework can do most primitive GROUP BY queries (and in the next release or two will gain a lot more power, as its a big focus). Additionally, many of the other weird queries I need can be expresset with the queryset.extra() command, which means I get to keep working with querysets. All this support is only a few versions old though, so 5 years ago it definitely was much worse.

coldtea 13y ago

>Who could possibly think this "DSL" is 'better' than something like People that hate leaky abstractions. People that understand that having the full power of SQL is better than a mediating layer -- as your needs get more evolved than inserting a simple row. People that are not afraid to learn SQL, and know that it's exactly a DSL built for relational data. People that trust an industry standard DSL more than some ad-hoc DSL built on top of it. People that know they can reuse the very same SQL across many different contexts, from their code in multiple languages to the rdbms command line client itself, whereas code for an ORM not so much.

Daishiman 13y ago
> People that hate leaky abstractions. SQL is already a leaky abstraction over the DBMS system's particular optimizations, or haven't you heard about people rewriting queries for Postgres or Oracle because of the engine's peculiarities? > People that understand that having the full power of SQL is better than a mediating layer -- as your needs get more evolved than inserting a simple row. There's nothing incompatible between using SQL for that 2% of cases and an ORM for the rest > People that are not afraid to learn SQL, and know that it's exactly a DSL built for relational data. I don't think anyone's afraid of SQL, but I sure as hell would be afraid of maintaining hundreds of plaintext SQL queries every time I add a new column. > People that trust an industry standard DSL more than some ad-hoc DSL built on top of it. All SQL implementations have ad-hoc additions that are platform-specific, and most ORMs work pretty damn well. > People that know they can reuse the very same SQL across many different contexts, from their code in multiple languages to the rdbms command line client itself, whereas code for an ORM not so much. This is BS. I have to touch a substantially larger amount of code when refactoring SQL than when touch ORM queries. Seriously, have you even used a decent ORM?
- coldtea 13y ago
  >SQL is already a leaky abstraction over the DBMS system's particular optimizations, or haven't you heard about people rewriting queries for Postgres or Oracle because of the engine's peculiarities? Which doesn't detract from my argument. Since leaky abstractions are bad why on earth would you double or triple them, building another abstraction (ORM) on the first one (SQL)? >There's nothing incompatible between using SQL for that 2% of cases and an ORM for the rest For serious development you'll find it's not just "2% of cases". YMMV. And again, there is something incompatible: certain ORMS make it difficult or prevent it altogether, and even if they allow it you end with a hybrid ORM/SQL codebase. >I don't think anyone's afraid of SQL I've met plenty of people who do. Some even think it's alien, the same way some people wouldn't touch LISP syntax with a bargepole. >but I sure as hell would be afraid of maintaining hundreds of plaintext SQL queries every time I add a new column If you need to do that, then you're doing it wrong. >All SQL implementations have ad-hoc additions that are platform-specific, and most ORMs work pretty damn well. "Pretty damn well"? As in generating slow ass queries, needing 300 pages of documentation (I'm thinking of Hibernate) for stuff you can do in 5 minutes in SQL, etc? Here's a gem from Django's 1.6 release notes (that somebody praised its ORM in the comments above): "The Model.save() method now tries to directly UPDATE the database if the instance has a primary key value. Previously SELECT was performed to determine if UPDATE or INSERT were needed". >This is BS. I have to touch a substantially larger amount of code when refactoring SQL than when touch ORM queries. Have you even tried to understand what it says? You can take your SQL and use it in another language, or in the DB CLI etc. Your ORM code is tied to your original codebase. No using SQL Alchemy if you switch to Java. >Seriously, have you even used a decent ORM? I've used SQL Alchemy, Hibernate and Django's ORM. Never found a decent one. But I know that connect-the-dots, Visual Basic style developers swear by them.

tethis 13y ago

There certainly are ORMs available with Play! I'm using one called Activate (http://activate-framework.org/ http://activate-framework.org/) in a few of my latest projects and it's really simplified things. There's also Squeryl, ReactiveMongo, Slick...