First of all thanks for the detailed answer. It contains many interesting points.
I don't think that AR is correct, I think that AR is more convenient than Ecto in many cases we run into in web development. With AR I don't have to write my own queries and encapsulate them into functions (but it's kind of what we do with scopes) and it has a more compact syntax. Ecto is more flexible, but that flexibility is not needed in most cases. Anyway when we must really be flexible we write queries in SQL and manually unmarshal resultsets. ORMs/Data Mappers are for simple and medium use cases.
I still didn't run into problems with the AR approach. Maybe it's because all of my projects were medium or small sized. I found AR to be perfect for them to the point that I want to disguise Ecto as AR using Ecto.Rut.
> you're regarding the "model" (the terminology is 'schema' in Ecto) as primary instead of building it as a separate context or application
This sounds interesting but I fail to understand what you mean. Would you mind explaining or posting a link? Thanks.
> I fail to see the advantages of `Model.get` over `Model |> Repo.get(id)`
It's shorter but not by much. One reason is that Repo doesn't mean much to me, so it could be hidden. What I care about is Model. But getting values out of the db is not such a pain. Inserting and updating is, because they are more verbose. I quote Ecto.Rut for the insert
Post.insert(title: "Awesome Post", slug: "awesome-post", category_id: 3)
# instead of:
# changeset = Post.changeset(%Post{}, %{title: "Awesome Post", slug: "awesome-post", category_id: 3})
# YourApp.Repo.insert(changeset)
If all of those extra characters are for extra flexibility (maybe for using more repositories in future?) then it smells of premature optimization. I'll happily do without it.
Regardless of this discussion, IMHO a thing that Ecto should fix is requiring developers to write both the migration and the schema. It's either the AR way, migration first and auto generated model, or the Python way, model first and auto generated migration. We got some bugs because we didn't write the same things inside the migration and the schema. Mistakes happens and the tools we use should help us not the make them. Ecto is not DRY but it should.
Btw, the compactness argument applies more or less to all of Ruby vs Elixir because of the object.oriented.notation.is.shorter than the Module1.functional |> Module2.way |> Module3.of |> Module4.composing. Aliases help to some degree but they add clutter to the top of the file. It's a little nuisance but pattern matching more than evens it.
I have to look more into Agent (thanks) but it seems exactly the opposite of what I want: write in the module only the code that should run in the server. Probably what I'm looking for is a macro that writes a vanilla GenServer for me hiding all the functions run on the client.
I don't think that AR is correct, I think that AR is more convenient than Ecto in many cases we run into in web development. With AR I don't have to write my own queries and encapsulate them into functions (but it's kind of what we do with scopes) and it has a more compact syntax. Ecto is more flexible, but that flexibility is not needed in most cases. Anyway when we must really be flexible we write queries in SQL and manually unmarshal resultsets. ORMs/Data Mappers are for simple and medium use cases.
I still didn't run into problems with the AR approach. Maybe it's because all of my projects were medium or small sized. I found AR to be perfect for them to the point that I want to disguise Ecto as AR using Ecto.Rut.
> you're regarding the "model" (the terminology is 'schema' in Ecto) as primary instead of building it as a separate context or application
This sounds interesting but I fail to understand what you mean. Would you mind explaining or posting a link? Thanks.
> I fail to see the advantages of `Model.get` over `Model |> Repo.get(id)`
It's shorter but not by much. One reason is that Repo doesn't mean much to me, so it could be hidden. What I care about is Model. But getting values out of the db is not such a pain. Inserting and updating is, because they are more verbose. I quote Ecto.Rut for the insert
If all of those extra characters are for extra flexibility (maybe for using more repositories in future?) then it smells of premature optimization. I'll happily do without it.Regardless of this discussion, IMHO a thing that Ecto should fix is requiring developers to write both the migration and the schema. It's either the AR way, migration first and auto generated model, or the Python way, model first and auto generated migration. We got some bugs because we didn't write the same things inside the migration and the schema. Mistakes happens and the tools we use should help us not the make them. Ecto is not DRY but it should.
Btw, the compactness argument applies more or less to all of Ruby vs Elixir because of the object.oriented.notation.is.shorter than the Module1.functional |> Module2.way |> Module3.of |> Module4.composing. Aliases help to some degree but they add clutter to the top of the file. It's a little nuisance but pattern matching more than evens it.
I have to look more into Agent (thanks) but it seems exactly the opposite of what I want: write in the module only the code that should run in the server. Probably what I'm looking for is a macro that writes a vanilla GenServer for me hiding all the functions run on the client.