The Zen of Python (by example)

Re:The Zen of Python (by example) by alexatkeplar on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @04:52AM (#3697558)

In #3, SQLAlchemy loses because it's "complex" while JSON is "simple". In #4, SQLAlchemy loses because this time it's "complicated", whereas inlining SQL create table statements is merely "complex".

Conclusion: for Hunter Blanks, SQLAlchemy can never win.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zen of Python (by example) by jobeirne on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @06:30AM (#3697767)

IMO, #3 was more about YAGNI[1], i.e. you probably won't need the speed, integrity constraints, relations, etc. delivered by SQL, so keep your data model flexible and lightweight until a shortage of those things is actually getting in your way.

I wouldn't be surprised if many people criticizing #3 had no practical experience with NoSQL and the benefits brought by its lack of baggage.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_aint_gonna_need_it

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zen of Python (by example) by dchest on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @06:27AM (#3697761)

"The order of examples is not necessarily bad first, good second." http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2203101

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Zen of Python (by example) by glassx on Tuesday March 13, 2012 @08:15AM (#3698036)

SQLAlchemy is "complex" in both #3 and #4, so it wins in #4.

[ Parent | on HN ]