Prev: GDAL-1.7.1 : vcvarsall.bat missing
Next: improving python performance by extension module (64bit)
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 3 Jul 2010 21:25
In message <mailman.2121.1277522302.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Robert
> On 2010-06-25 19:47 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> In message<mailman.2046.1277445301.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Cameron
>> Simpson wrote:
>>> On 25Jun2010 15:38, Lawrence
>>> D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>>> | In message<2010062422432660794-angrybaldguy(a)gmailcom>, Owen Jacobson
>>> | wrote:
>>> |> Why would I write this when SQLAlchemy, even without using its ORM
>>> |> features, can do it for me?
>>> | SQLAlchemy doesn't seem very flexible. Looking at the code examples
>>> |<http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/examples.html>, they're very
>>> |procedural: build object, then do a string of separate method calls to
>>> |add data to it. I prefer the functional approach, as in my table-update
>>> He said "without using its ORM".
>> I noticed that. So were those examples I referenced above “using its
>> ORM”? Can you offer better examples “without using its ORM”?
Still full of very repetitive boilerplate. Doesn't look like it can create a
simpler alternative to my example at all.
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro on 3 Jul 2010 21:28
In message <mailman.2128.1277537954.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, Robert
> On 2010-06-25 19:49 , Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Why do people consider input sanitization so hard?
> It's not hard per se; it's just repetitive, prone to the occasional
> mistake, and, frankly, really boring.
But as a programmer, I'm not in the habit of doing “repetitive” and
“boring”. Look at the example I posted, and you'll see. It's the ones trying
to come up with alternatives to my code who produce things that look
“reptitive” and “boring”.