Spyced

Earlier this year I wrote an introduction to SqlSoup , the SQLAlchemy extension that leverages SQLAlchemy's excellent introspection, mapping, and sql construction to provide a database interface that is both simple and powerful. Here's what SqlSoup has added since then (continuing with the books/loans/users example tables from pyweboff ). Full SqlSoup documentation is on the SQLAlchemy wiki . Set operations The introduction covered updating and deleting rows that had been mapped to Python objects. You can also perform updates and deletes directly to the database. >>> db.loans.insert(book_id=book_id, user_name=user.name) MappedLoans(book_id=2,user_name='Bhargan Basepair',loan_date=None) >>> db.flush() >>> db.loans.delete(db.loans.c.book_id==2) >>> db.loans.update(db.loans.c.book_id==2, book_id=1) >>> db.loans.select_by(db.loans.c.book_id==1) [MappedLoans(book_id=1,user_name='Joe Student',loan_date=datetime....

I don't follow Ruby development too closely (most of the info on it is still in Japanese, after all), but the US RubyConf was held recently so there's been an unusual number of English posts on Ruby, among them David Pollack's The Impending Ruby Fracture. David's article seems to consist of these points: Matz is uninterested in adding static bondage & discipline features to Ruby (true, as far as I know) "Enterprise" users won't be satisfied without said features (more on this below) There are a lot of Ruby runtimes out there right now (the most interesting part of the article) Therefore some Enterprise will co-opt one of the runtimes to fork Ruby and add the B&D features (wtf?) Summarized this way it looks faintly ridiculous, and yet nobody over on the programming reddit has called this out. Maybe I'm taking excessive liberties with David's article, but I don't think I am. The possibility of forking is part of what makes open sou...