Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #81961
| References | <1417716864073.82294@activenetwerx.com> <CAPTjJmrix4KtLwf4S6kDHYsNLGT5KdYxhrju-0rS8GOyJGa9CQ@mail.gmail.com> <1417735208769.37132@activenetwerx.com> <m5qquh$1r4$1@ger.gmane.org> <1417736628226.14287@activenetwerx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-05 10:47 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: ORM opinion |
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.16598.1417736856.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Joseph L. Casale <jcasale@activenetwerx.com> wrote: > I found that article before posting and some of the guys here have already > started using peewee. I don't have much time with it yet. So far all I can say > is its unfortunate some package authors take such an approach to naming. > > I can't fathom sitting across the table from a CTO and CFO who are authorizing > a 7 figure expenditure and then telling them about my peewee app with its > playhouse module? Sigh... Then never EVER get into Ruby. That seems to be the norm for gem naming. ChrisA
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: ORM opinion Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-12-05 10:47 +1100
csiph-web