On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 8:13 AM, Mark Tompsett <mtompset@hotmail.com> wrote:
Greetings,
Fey?! Please, let’s not add more technologies (Haskell that compiles to Javascript) in for geekiness sake.
Heh, not Fay, Fey ; ) http://search.cpan.org/~drolsky/Fey-0.40/lib/Fey.pm
I have been reading this dialogue between Robin and Kyle and thinking to myself, “Why was DBIC added in the first place? Was it not to increase portability (where is that ‘it does not run on Postgresql!’ person) , ‘simplify’ (at the cost of another learning curve) data access, and provide a cleaner abstraction for data access?” So, why was it added? Was it added to be more Object Oriented (OO) so we could use it in the way that is being discussed? So, I’ll reiterate my question again, which I think will bring some clarity to the discussion, what was the point of adding DBIC?
I had always thought it was yes to all those. We discussed the issues in Edinburgh. That's where the idea of adding another layer of abstraction was proposed and later discarded.
P.S. Abstractions are okay, but abstractions upon abstractions are ugly for the initial learning curve. If you want people to join the coding community, multiple levels of abstractions make it more difficult.
Agreed. That is why I'm making these suggestions. Kyle