On 8/15/2022 1:31 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2022-08-15, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps some objects don't work as well as possible. The OO folks will just say
>> faster HW makes that not an issue. I think efficiency is always an issue. I
>> doubt they will ever agree, because they might not like to type?
>>
>
> OO, done properly, gives you way more maintainable code.
>
> Simon.
>

Did you miss where my priority is "efficiency"?

Wonder how maintainable it is for a programmer who doesn't use OO?

--
David Froble Tel: 724-529-0450
Dave Froble Enterprises, Inc. E-Mail: davef@tsoft-inc.com
DFE Ultralights, Inc.
170 Grimplin Road
Vanderbilt, PA 15486

On 2022-08-15, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 1:31 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-15, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps some objects don't work as well as possible. The OO folks will just say
>>> faster HW makes that not an issue. I think efficiency is always an issue. I
>>> doubt they will ever agree, because they might not like to type?
>>>
>>
>> OO, done properly, gives you way more maintainable code.
>>
>> Simon.
>>
>
> Did you miss where my priority is "efficiency"?
>

Efficiency means many things.

Efficiency of code execution or efficiency of being able to more
easily make code changes ?

> Wonder how maintainable it is for a programmer who doesn't use OO?
>

Good question. That depends on the languages and the idioms used
while writing code in those languages.

Simon.

--
Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Walking destinations on a map are further away than they appear.

On 8/14/2022 10:24 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
> On 15/08/2022 2:50 am, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/13/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2022 8:26 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Even if one knows SQL then an ORM will usually result in significant
>>>> less code and less code means easier maintenance.
>>>
>>> BOLLOCKS!!!
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Try compare:

>> The ORM code is at a higher abstraction level and much shorter.
>
> Mate, we can all abstract away code behind smoke and mirrors :-(

True, but those code fragments are pretty common ADO.NET and EF style.

> How 'bout I give you an amazing stored procedure that results in minimum
> C# interface?

Reading result set from a SP call and from a SELECT statement
requires the exact same C# code.

> All write operations should be SPs any way.

That is not universally agreed on.

Using SP's for writes and either SP's or views for
reads does have some advantages:
- better performance for multi SQL statement
operations due to fewer roundtrips between
application and database
- the possibility of granting access to SP's
(and views) instead of tables resulting in
better security

But the entire solution get ties to a specific database.
SP's are not portable in any way. So you better like
the database vendors pricing policy for the next 25 years.

Arne

On 8/15/2022 12:32 AM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/14/2022 10:24 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>> As I keep telling OO people "It's not all about reducing your typing
>> effort!"
>
> Agreed 110% ...
>
> Perhaps some objects don't work as well as possible.

The objects used by ORM frameworks are typical just
data also known as records in other languages.

(one exception: one-to-many relation with lazy loading, which
often involves some OO technqiues)

>   The OO folks will
> just say faster HW makes that not an issue.  I think efficiency is
> always an issue.  I doubt they will ever agree, because they might not
> like to type?

The people doing the typing and the people doing the reading later
tend to cost money.

Arne

On 8/15/2022 2:10 PM, Dave Froble wrote:
> On 8/15/2022 1:31 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
>> On 2022-08-15, Dave Froble <davef@tsoft-inc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps some objects don't work as well as possible.  The OO folks
>>> will just say
>>> faster HW makes that not an issue.  I think efficiency is always an
>>> issue.  I
>>> doubt they will ever agree, because they might not like to type?
>>>
>>
>> OO, done properly, gives you way more maintainable code.
>
> Did you miss where my priority is "efficiency"?
>
> Wonder how maintainable it is for a programmer who doesn't use OO?

OO is probably difficult for someone not knowing OO.

In general XYZ is difficult for anyone not knowing XYZ.

The good thing for OO is that almost all developers below
50 knows OO.

Arne

On 8/15/2022 8:47 AM, Craig A. Berry wrote:
> On 8/14/22 1:50 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> On 8/13/2022 11:25 PM, Richard Maher wrote:
>>> On 12/08/2022 8:26 pm, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>>>> Even if one knows SQL then an ORM will usually result in
>>>> significant less code and less code means easier maintenance.
>>>
>>> BOLLOCKS!!!
>>
>> No.
>>
>> Try compare:

>> The ORM code is at a higher abstraction level and much shorter.
>
> The first one could be a lot shorter if you write some utility code to
> set up the parameters and load the DataReader into a list.

A good chunk of the code could be avoided by having some
smart code do parameters and reading.

And some more code could be avoided by having some smart
code convert between IDataReader and target objects.

And when all that smart code is done then one has written a
custom ORM.

:-)

Maybe not like EF - probably more like Dapper,
but Dapper is also an ORM (and some people really
like Dapper because it is simpler than EF and
NHibernate).

Arne