in reply to SQL? We don't need no steenking SQL!

What do you mean "we"? This is written for a single-user on a stand-alone pc or something. Unless you're using the "royal 'we'", you might want to add file locking to the read and write subs.

Aside from that, I like the look of it as-is. I do agree with Juerd about the wisdom of using existing modules, but if a problem is easy to solve with your own code, you're entitled to spend your time solving it for yourself if you want, rather than spenging your time to locate (install if necessary) and learn someone else's abstraction for solving a problem (which might not be exactly the same problem as yours, anyway). ++!

  • Comment on Re: SQL? We don't need no steenking SQL!

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: SQL? We don't need no steenking SQL!
by rje (Deacon) on May 21, 2002 at 20:50 UTC
    I'm using 'we' in the metaphorical sense (a la Blazing Saddles). Non sequiturs are a specialty of mine.

    As far as I can tell, dbm et al are only hash tables cached to disk; it doesn't seem to permit arbitrary column access, which is the main requirement for me. In other words, I'd still have to write the bulk of what I've got, and just sit it on a dbm file instead of a plaintext file. The two seem disjoint to me.

    This beastie is for OOP practice, and to tide me over until I can port our data to Postgres.