Re:Happy Birthday, Ruby
by lowercased on Thursday January 10, 2019 @10:01AM
(#18874259)
pluralization seems to be somewhat orthogonal to the "no standards" issue you raise; one could have introduced standard rules to help with that 'wild west' and still left out pluralization. pluralization brings with it runtime overhead and edge cases (which can be dealt with with more runtime overhead, of course).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Happy Birthday, Ruby
by calaveraDeluxe on Thursday January 10, 2019 @10:56AM
(#18874741)
I'm curious, where does pluralization of table names bring runtime overhead? AFAIK, they are stored in the model and not generated every time they are needed.
Re:Happy Birthday, Ruby
by lowercased on Friday January 11, 2019 @10:13AM
(#18884035)
apparently, my bad. my earlier reading of rails from years ago was that this was runtime inflection, not at generation time.
it still, imo, adds some cognitive overhead, and other orms I've used (grails/gorm, for example), don't try to pluralize. you can pluralize by hand if you want to, but the default is just to name a table whatever the class name is.
It does bring cognitive overhead, when it's not explicit
But you’re writing an ActiveRecord migration. It’s explicit in the same way that echoing a string out is ‘puts’ instead of ‘print’ because this is Ruby and not Python.
what if you're on a team where your responsibilities are divided and you only touch ActiveRecord sporadically?
What does ActiveRecord consider the plural of "fish"?