[KLUG Members] PHP and MYSQL

[Adam Williams]

>Still missing the point.

Quite possible, I've been known to do that.  Ask my wife. :)

>This person is starting to learn, not starting to compile census data.
>>>For someone -starting off- to learn php & mysql, I disagree about using ODBC.
>>>Learn the easiest, fastest way first, which is php & mysql.  Not
>>>everyone is going to end up using Oracle.
>>....
>>I think this point should at least be considered in
>>all developement projects (after all, I was basing all this on something
>>someone else gave away).
>That's my point.  Too many people -assume- every app must be ODBC, which is
>ridiculous.  PHP & MySQL rocks, most of those who disagree, disagree on
>preference, not rationality.

I don't disagree that PHP & MySQL "rock".  Not at all. I disagree that
writing applictions vertically (tied closely to a specific
environment) is good idea, excepting some specific cases of course.

My point isn't at all against MySQL.  But if I have Informix,
PostrgreSQL, dBase, ISAM, etc...  and some app wants MySQL, then I (as an
administrator in general) am going to be quite hesitant to add
yet-another-datastore when I want to pursue 'zero degrees of seperation' :)
between applications.  I have personally seen Open Source projects passed
over because of the yet-another-datastore,  which is silly because it is
such a trivial problem to solve.  If one is going to learn,  I'd advise
that is better to learn the 'better' way right out of the gate.

I use MySQL via ODBC for some personal stuff every day,  works great.

I do have concerns that MySQL isn't appropriate for some of the
applications it is deployed in,  but that is an entirely different thread.

>>Right.  But if you can drive a Reliant Aries K you can drive a Volvo.
>>If you learn to drive on a Model-T ford,  driving a Volvo (or an Aries
>>K) is going to be pretty hard.
>This barely makes sense.  You're insulting MySQL inexplicably.

I didn't mean to "insult".

>A Model T?

What I meant was that I consider vertical/stacked programming as different
conceptually than modular/loosely-coupled programming.  Not that one is
obselete or ancient.  The Model-T is very different to drive than 'modern'
cars:  reverse is a pedal on the floor, the throttle and ignition
retardation is a lever on the steering column, etc... vs. reverse being a
'gear' and the throttle being on the floor.  So learning to drive a
Model-T doesn't help one to drive a Volvo or Aries K.  I think that if one
learns to program modularly and loosely-coupled one will have an easier
time adapting one's programming skills to new and various problems and
environments.  If one learns the vertical way one may have a more
difficult time.

I learned the vertical way,  I think I speak from experience.  I have
worked with interns, almost all who have learned the vertical way.  It
becomes a real struggle to produce (myself) and to get them to produce
code that will still be maintainable or even useful 12 months from now.

>Learning another database after learning MySQL is easy.

No arguement.

>And it's likely that MySQL will do everything the person needs, both now and later.

One could argue this,  but thats and entirely different thread.

>If you burden someone with too much unnecessary overhead to make his learning
>curve look like a cliff he may just give up trying.  Let the guy learn.

I don't think unixODBC adds even 2 degrees to the learning curve. Or is it
a learning angle....