While I love seeing slides, this deck obviously could use the audio or transcript along with it.
Agreed, I for one was felt feeling rather in the dark for the last few slides especially...
Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
11–20 of 155 posts
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#12Does anyone know what tool was used to profile the django app? Looks cool.
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#13While I love seeing slides, this deck obviously could use the audio or transcript along with it.
[deleted]
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#14Did someone understand the last slides about the differences between transactions in tasks with and without celery ? I'm using celery, and i have been using django in the past, and I really didn't get the point.
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#15Don't use just one ORM and then declare "ORM's are stupid". The "object = None" / "object_id = None" issue illustrated here is certainly not a mistake every ORM makes.
Why not just write the SQL?
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of an ORM which is not in some fundamental way "stupid"? I haven't found one yet, but I'd love to know one existed somewhere.
Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid". Google is stupid. Relational databases are stupid, SQL is stupid. None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us. Why single out ORMs?
That's called arguing for the sake of arguing ...
OP says one ORM is bad so all of them are, you say no some are nicely made (which I agree with), parent ask for a specific example you would recommend and you answer by nitpicking on a single word in his message, one that he even put in quotes himself. And then you finish with a question about something that parent didn't even say or infer.
Either you have an example and you provide it, or you don't and you say so, but your comment was unnecessary and unwanted.
(and so is mine, but I've seen so many of those on HN lately that I just broke and wrote that rant)
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of an ORM which is not in some fundamental way "stupid"? I haven't found one yet, but I'd love to know one existed somewhere.
Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid". Google is stupid. Relational databases are stupid, SQL is stupid. None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us. Why single out ORMs?
> Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid" ... None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us.
You've implicitly defined AI as a level of intelligence that doesn't need human oversight to function. That level doesn't exist yet, but that doesn't mean AI doesn't exist -- it just has a different definition than the one you're using.
Consider Watson (the Jeopardy contest computer lately in the news) -- it can beat the best Jeopardy players, but it's completely unable to function if given a different task or deprived of human oversight. Notwithstanding that limitation, most people will claim it's an example of AI.
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid". Google is stupid. Relational databases are stupid, SQL is stupid. None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us. Why single out ORMs?
You're contradicting yourself. Your first comment indicates that it's wrong to label ORMs as "stupid". Yet in this latest comment, you've labeled all software (which includes ORMs, of course) as "stupid". Like the other commenter requested, can you provide an example of an ORM that isn't "stupid"? Your initial comment makes it sound like you've worked with at least one that isn't. We're curious to learn about which t…
The word "stupid" here is ambiguous, so can be interpreted as, "stupid", "it's stupid to use them" (I disagree), or "stupid", "they don't necessarily understand your intent" (this applies to all software), "stupid", "simple issues are made more complicated than they should be, to an unreasonable extent" (this is a problem that varies to a significant degree based on the ORM in use and cannot be generalized based on the experience of just one ORM). Without the benefit of the speaker's words here it's hard to tell, though the only backing evidence given in these slides for "ORMs are stupid" is a trivial issue that not every ORM has, so that's IMO not a good argument.
View my profile for further detail.
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have an example of an ORM which is not in some fundamental way "stupid"? I haven't found one yet, but I'd love to know one existed somewhere.
Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid". Google is stupid. Relational databases are stupid, SQL is stupid. None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us. Why single out ORMs?
Software is a tool, ORMs are tools. I don't need a tool to do my work for me, I just need it to work well for whatever job it's for. A "stupid" hammer would be one that is just a rock with a hole in it loosely fitted over a stick that fits in the hole with nothing but friction to hold it on. A "stupid" farm tractor would be one that gets 15 mpg most of the time except when it's used during a full moon between 10am and noon, in which case it gets 1 mpg.
Most ORMs are indeed stupid. They often produce completely surprising results at the least opportune moments. They are high maintenance tools that require constant supervision to ensure that you haven't accidentally made some changes which causes something crazy to happen in the ORM. It's about the principle of least surprise, which ORMs often fail horrifically at.
Re: Lessons learned defying Joel Spolsky with Django
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until we've attained AI, all software can be said to be "stupid". Google is stupid. Relational databases are stupid, SQL is stupid. None of it works without human intelligence actively directing it to do work for us. Why single out ORMs?
That's called arguing for the sake of arguing ... OP says one ORM is bad so all of them are, you say no some are nicely made (which I agree with), parent ask for a specific example you would recommend and you answer by nitpicking on a single word in his message, one that he even put in quotes himself. And then you finish with a question about something that parent didn't even say or infer. Either you have an example…
see my other comment to PommeDeTerre.