|
|
The perfect PM. 
|
|
|
|
|
That's how I like my pointy hairs. All hot air, no substance.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Earlier this AM, I sent that to the company's CEO - really.
Worst case? He'll realize it's me and just shake his head. (I hope)
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
When I worked at Bell South they had a policy prohibiting the posting of Dilbert cartoons on the cubicle walls. Anything else was fine, just not Dilbert.
I think that pretty much tells the whole story.
|
|
|
|
|
Same as ye old, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS".
|
|
|
|
|
At work a colleague has started using NHibernate, an ORM (Object-relational mapping), before this we only used hand-coded SQL routines.
I wonder if this is a good choice, we are using VS2017, mainly C# and PostgreSQL.
The database is fairly simple, only about 20 tables, but speed and performance are important factors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I take it you are speaking from experience with NHibernate ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can still use stored procs (at least with EF - don't know about NHibernate). Marc Clifton has a post below about EF. We are starting with EF Core 2 - supposedly a big advance on previous versions in terms of speed and usage - too early to tell if that is the case.
Keep your friends close. Keep Kill your enemies closer.
The End
|
|
|
|
|
I first used ORMs about 20 years ago. I have been saddled with trying out various ones over the intervening years. My advice, if you have to go ORM, roll your own because at least then it might do what you want and not get in the way.
This space for rent
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, that seems to confirm my gut feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if the collegue can explain the added value of the extra dependency and the added complexity, then yes.
And all software-shops claim that performance is an important factor, but no-one dies if a manager has to wait a second longer for a loop to complete. Being correct is more important than being quick 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Being correct is more important than being quick
Just thinking out loud here, but that's also pretty much true for your career as well.
I'm retired. There's a nap for that...
- Harvey
|
|
|
|
|
More for your health. In a place where speed is the only thing and lowly developers are never right about anything, not even when they saw the desaster coming, there is only one way to save yourself: Get out of there as quickly as you can, even if that means you have to live under a bridge.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats.
His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I'd rather wait for a correct answer than get a wrong answer immediately.
(Though I don't think this matters to this discussion. However, I have worked with a database system that ignored order of operations but was faaaassssttt.  )
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: However, I have worked with a database system that ignored order of operations but was faaaassssttt.
Dirty reads, same problem.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: Though I don't think this matters to this discussion.
Same goes for code; do you want a solution fast, or do you want a solution that is good? I can see how I'd use an ORM for prototyping, but would prefer an actual query in production.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I enjoy a good dirty read. 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if I understood him correctly he meant to reduce complexity and make programming more simple. I have to disagree on the performance point you make though, in the past the application he is working on proved to be problematic due to the massive amount of queries, this was one of the reasons to opt for PostgreSQL instead of SQL Server which we used before. SQL Server really struggled where PostgreSQL runs without any problems.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would the number of queries depend on the database? 
|
|
|
|
|
So he is using an ORM because SQL is too complicated?
RickZeeland wrote: I have to disagree on the performance point you make though, in the past the application he is working on proved to be problematic due to the massive amount of queries
So should he ORM? Guess you answered the question here 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
I think I answered my question indeed, and that was already my point of view, the real challenge will be to convince my colleague of my point of view 
Well we will see how he reacts on my criticism tomorrow, he's not in the office today ...
|
|
|
|
|
RickZeeland wrote: the real challenge will be to convince my colleague of my point of view
The other way around; he is introducing something new, and he should be convincing you that there is some added value in his decision.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Wish it was so easy, although I'm respected as a MVP on CodeProject, my colleagues seem to think otherwise 
He already implemented NHibernate in his project ...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
