Christopher H. Laco (c...@chrislaco.com)

http://use.perl.org/~jk2addict/journal/35189

-=Chris

Hopefully that's not stock 5.10.0, because that has its own performance
problems.

-=Chris

Ali M. wrote:
> DBIC is switching to Moose?

Isn't everything? :-)

Attachment: signature.asc

Hmmm.

http://www.rubyonrails.org/
"Rails is a full-stack framework"

http://cakephp.org/
"CakePHP is a rapid development framework"

http://www.djangoproject.com/
"Django is a high-level Python Web framework"


Yup. All frameworks. All not meant for end users, yet they manage to
make things a lot easier for the new user, or the people trying to
figure out which framework to go with.


  it is
> intended for developers. If you are writing a app with Cat and you need to
> have an installer or test -> prod transition toolchain I think most
> developers would write a wrapper script that works for their environment
> and does a bit more than deploy(). If you are publishing an app and need
> an installer kit, same deal. There is more to do then run a generic db
> deploy script. If you are a developer and just want to deploy, 'perl
> -MMySchema -e 'MySchema->connect(...)->deploy'' seems easy enough for a
> perl developer. I guess I am wondering what usage senerio you are trying
> to fix with the deploy command line?
>
> -Wade



Not everyone, esp when trying to decide on what framework to use, is
going to get perl -M -e and being an uber perl master from day one.

Here's the usage scenarios I'm trying to fix:

> cake schema run create
> manage.py syncdb
> rake db:migrate

Things like deploy/upgrade are a lot easier and more obvious in other
frameworks. Yes, DBIC isn't Catalyst, but Cat Tuts push DBIC. It is the
defacto ORM.

We talk about things like C:Model::DBIC, yet if you want to use things
like CatX::CRUD, they're not compatible models..forcing the user to
abandon one path for another. This is compared to other offerings that
just make shit happen for the user form the start.

I understand people want choice. I understand the Perl community likes
TIMTOWTDI. I understand people/dists/groups not wanting to force
decisions on users.

But from the perspective of looking at what's out there and having to
make decisions on which project to do with, Cat+DBIC are really turning
into something that is the least user friendly of all of them.

>>> You mean a command like "dbicdeploy"? Yeah, shame it doesn't exist,
>>> somebody really should write something like that. Oh, wait, someone
> did:

is not an appropriate answer for a new user or Catalyst or DBIC. It's an
attitude. Why isn't that part of dbicadmin? Why doesn't Cat roll that
into script/? Why doesn't a fresh Cat app automatically create
MyApp::Schema, or at least make it easiser to do so?

Look, I think DBIC and Cat are awesome things (God Bless Chained), but
they're far from new-user friendly and they could use a substantial
amount of glue and gloss to fill in the holes. The real question is
whether that can happen, or we get mired in debate about 'they can just
download 5 other things to do the same thing'

Yeah, in another dist. How friendly. Like I said before, this is not a
personal attack on anyone here. I do use Perl as my first language.

But this attitude is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It's offputting and
completely in denial that a lot of cat/dbic shit could be a hell of a
lot easier compaired to other Frameworks.

-=Chris