+1 for Sequel. Use it in production with several apps and have =
absolutely no complaints.

Bryan

On Mar 3, 2013, at 10:19 AM, D. Deryl Downey <me / daviddwdowney.com> =
wrote:

> I would really suggest using Sequel before (or instead of) =
ActiveRecord.
> Its smaller, lighter, and (if you're used to sql) closer to the bone.
>=20
> I found I had *serious* problems trying to understand Sequel's syntax
> after using ActiveRecord, and the lack of #find* helpers like =
ActiveRecord
> has threw me for a loop.
>=20
> As I started digging deeper into Sequel, and started throwing out
> ActiveRecord it started getting a bit easier, but I do have to say =
that
> working with Sequel was far harder than it had to be because of =
hitting
> ActiveRecord first. I got spoiled with the easier syntax and fooled =
into
> thinking it was the 'better' of the two. I got that totally wrong.
>=20
>=20
> On 3/3/13 8:02 AM, "David Mullet" <lists / ruby-forum.com> wrote:
>=20
>> Jim Hranicky wrote in post #1099800:
>>> So it looks like RDBI hasn't been touched in a while and DBI
>>> appears dormant, so I've been looking at Sequel . I like what
>>> I've seen so far and I'm just wondering if this would be
>>> considered "the way to do database programming in ruby"
>>> (if there is one) ?
>>>=20
>>> I moved from DBI to RDBI a while back and would like to
>>> stick with something that'll be around and supported
>>> along with the language.
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>>=20
>>> --
>>> Jim Hranicky
>>> IT Security Engineer
>>> UF Information Technology
>>> Office of Information Security and Compliance
>>=20
>> I'm not prepared to state that Sequel is THE way to do database
>> programming in Ruby". But it's a solid choice and is continuously
>> updated. I use it daily in a variety of environments: SQL Server or
>> SQLite; desktop or server; MRI or JRuby.
>>=20
>> David
>>=20
>> --=20
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20