|
Chris Maunder wrote: So I was wondering: has anyone else played with any file templating solutions like this
I have been using code generation for years.
That has included generating basically entire backends and database layers from external languages like C# and java down to schemas and stored procs.
In my experience generating non-CRUD stored procs for multiple database targets is at best difficult and it isn't worth it. Because of differences and complexity one ends up providing a mechanism to insert custom code for different targets. So rather than having X number of different procs that one must manage one then has X number of different fragments, or worse, X * multiplier fragments in a system that one must understand in detail to update.
I have no problem with CRUD proc generation across multiple platforms. But there are multiple frameworks these days that at least provide an alternative to that.
Of course if you are the only one that must maintain the system then the experience and technical challenge is a factor.
|
|
|
|
|
I know - we should just shift to entity framework and be done with it.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I've saved a link to this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
GNU m4[^]?
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
Dog[^]
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
blocked by the IT police
|
|
|
|
|
Dave, look at my FB Page.
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
It is like the canine version of "The Good Life"....
|
|
|
|
|
I think the chicken is aware that something is amiss!
---------------------------------
Obscurum per obscurius.
Ad astra per alas porci.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur .
|
|
|
|
|
The chicken has that same worried look as the sheep when Griff enters the field.
speramus in juniperus
|
|
|
|
|
First off, some background:
GNU Libiconv v1.14 has issues when enabling a relocatable library.
I was looking through the makefile, and saw that the relocatable.c file was missing from the sources list, so I added it, ran make, then make install, and it worked! That was somewhat fun to figure out (I hate makefiles).
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Keep Clam And Proofread
--
√(-1) 23 ∑ π...
And it was delicious.
|
|
|
|
|
From time to time my work in IT has caused me to mutter things that make no sense.
Today's example: I just received the 3rd revision to the final version of the specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
...and still waiting for the final revision to the final version of the specifications.
|
|
|
|
|
The part that doesn't make sense is the final version of the specifications
We all know there is no "final" version of specifications
|
|
|
|
|
^ This man has experience in the field.
|
|
|
|
|
There is actually a final version of specifications*
*Subject to change without notice.
|
|
|
|
|
Shameel wrote: There is actually a final version of specifications
I'd be happy with just that
|
|
|
|
|
Half the damn time there isn't a first version of the specification!
The only instant messaging I do involves my middle finger.
English doesn't borrow from other languages.
English follows other languages down dark alleys, knocks them over and goes through their pockets for loose grammar.
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the time my specifications are this:
Make it like project X, except it'll be different.
Of course they can't explain what is different, so I spend a couple hundred hours making something only to have to throw half of it out and do it again...
|
|
|
|
|
Every revision of a specification is the final version of that specification. The revision you get tomorrow is a new specification.
|
|
|
|
|
During a recent product release cycle, we made it to RC13. Yes, release candidate 13.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|