On that point I am certainly not an expert in using DBI, but when reading your article I could not
help but notice that it was quite unfair with DBI. If DBIx::Recordset is such a great module you don't
have to use deliberately clumsy DBI constructs to prove it. This certainly detracts from your goal.
And believe me, if I noticed it, I am probably not the only one. Being enthusiastic about a module is
one thing, not being fair when comparing it to other modules is another.
That's a good point and it's not the first time that it has
been made. In fact, the very article you see on perl.com
was rejected at The Perl Journal with the major complaint
being I didn't need to spend time slamming DBI, but could
instead just show how great Recordset was and attract
interest that way.
Your point is now taken, but please understand: when I used
that crufty example, my intent was not: "oh boy let
me come up with some super-crappy DBI code and scare
everyone off from it." In fact, until I read this thread,
it never occurred to me that that would be the way that
people would take that example.
That example came about simply because I had to fix something
and it was right there staring me in the face. And then I
began to think: "if only Recordset were the de facto
application-level interface, things like this could
not be written." And then things continued from there. I
kept writing and piecing together ideas until it turned into