From: "D. Deryl Downey" <me@...>
Date: 2013-03-04T01:19:23+09:00
Subject: Re: Sequel vs. RDBI vs. DBI

I would really suggest using Sequel before (or instead of) ActiveRecord.
Its smaller, lighter, and (if you're used to sql) closer to the bone.

I found I had *serious* problems trying to understand Sequel's syntax
after using ActiveRecord, and the lack of #find* helpers like ActiveRecord
has threw me for a loop.

As I started digging deeper into Sequel, and started throwing out
ActiveRecord it started getting a bit easier, but I do have to say that
working with Sequel was far harder than it had to be because of hitting
ActiveRecord first. I got spoiled with the easier syntax and fooled into
thinking it was the 'better' of the two. I got that totally wrong.


On 3/3/13 8:02 AM, "David Mullet" <lists@ruby-forum.com> wrote:

>Jim Hranicky wrote in post #1099800:
>> So it looks like RDBI hasn't been touched in a while and DBI
>> appears dormant, so I've been looking at Sequel . I like what
>> I've seen so far and I'm just wondering if this would be
>> considered "the way to do database programming in ruby"
>> (if there is one) ?
>>
>> I moved from DBI to RDBI a while back and would like to
>> stick with something that'll be around and supported
>> along with the language.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Jim Hranicky
>> IT Security Engineer
>> UF Information Technology
>> Office of Information Security and Compliance
>
>I'm not prepared to state that Sequel is THE way to do database
>programming in Ruby". But it's a solid choice and is continuously
>updated. I use it daily in a variety of environments: SQL Server or
>SQLite; desktop or server; MRI or JRuby.
>
>David
>
>-- 
>Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>