[Catalyst] ActiveRecord for Perl

[John Siracusa]

On 5/22/07 8:07 PM, Matt S Trout wrote:
> I discussed merging the projects with jcs a while back but he didn't see the
> point of the ResultSet chaining system, which I consider DBIC's key killer
> feature

I just didn't think a merge made sense since the two projects have different
philosophies and very different APIs.  It's not that I don't "understand"
result sets (RDBO will likely get them some day, in fact), they just weren't
as important to me.  I had a few specific things I wanted to do with RDBO
and I did them first.  It was a pragmatic approach.

> In the meantime, RDBO is a brilliantly well-written system and if you're with
> jcs in not seeing the point of the (functional-ish/set-arithmetic-ish
> resultset concept) and not wanting to be able to subclass to override at any
> level of the process, it's a very useful option.

IME, it's not a matter of "not seeing the point" of a resultset approach,
but rather a preference for a particular API type.  That is, it's a matter
of taste rather than one of ignorance.

> I usually tell people to examine both and choose whichever best suits their
> project - the experienced developers seem -usually- to end up going for
> "DBIx::Class by default, Rose::DB::Object when they need speed over features"
> but that's my personal experience from discussion with a few hundred perl
> developers, not a statement of intent/recommendation.
> Rose::DB::Object

Although performance may attract people to RDBO initially, I think the
people who decide to stick with it do so for other reasons: they like the
API, it has some particular feature they want, etc.  I've never taken a
survey, but that's my impression based on RDBO mailing list traffic and so
on.  I can tell you that I'd personally keep using RDBO even if it was the
slowest ORM, but perhaps that's not too surprising ;)

-John