<< Isn't this pushing politically correct too far? | Home | Boo's DSL >>

You are allowed to disagree, too

Just to clarify, the other side of this post in this one. Rob Conery says that he landed on my bad side. Allow me to clarify, I may disagree with with Rob, but I like this types of discussions.

Oh, and Rob, in the last week I posted 55 posts, 5 of which were about this discussion. Considering that this is usually how much I post in a week month, and considering that this is a topic which is (a) near and dear to my heart, (b) I disagree with Rob on this matter, I wouldn't be surprised to see more coming soon. I actually have one that I still need to work on, regarding Rob's to Evan's post.

What sucks is that ORM can easily be abused

The universe keeps producing better idiots, it is a shame, I know.

By the way, I agree with the spirit of what Rob is saying, except that I don't agree with the examples that he is using. Basically, going anywhere blinding is a bad approach, you should really learn the stack that you are using and be able to utilize every part of it. Closing off options because of dogma is a really bad place to be when the shit hit the fan.

Print | posted on Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:21 AM

Feedback

Gravatar

# re: You are allowed to disagree, too 6/7/2007 5:53 AM Mike D

There is no right or wrong here, only different levels of ignorance.

Gravatar

# re: You are allowed to disagree, too 6/7/2007 6:16 AM Mike D

We need another ORM Debate about as much as we need another ORM.

Gravatar

# re: You are allowed to disagree, too 6/7/2007 7:46 AM Evan

An ORM tool is like a shotgun. When used properly, it has lots of good potential. When abused, ouch.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. ORM doesn't kill projects. People kill projects.

Gravatar

# re: You are allowed to disagree, too 6/7/2007 6:00 PM Matt

These sort of arguments too often come down to something that should not require a debate: "There is only one way to do it" is a way of thinking that always leads to failure.

This business is far too dynamic to assume that any one path/method/technology will address all of the needs of a system, both known and unknown.

Those who assume otherwise, simply need more time and experience to learn otherwise.

Comments have been closed on this topic.