Masonites use of "dynamic" active record is a step backwards. We tried that with Rails. It turned out to be an anti-pattern. (A recurring problem with that confounded ORM. The guy who designed it really did have some ass-backwards views on ORM design. I was baffled at his insistence that constraints didnt belong in the DB.)
I dunno. Some of this I like, but if feels like we're making old mistakes over again.
Masonites use of "dynamic" active record is a step backwards. We tried that with Rails. It turned out to be an anti-pattern. (A recurring problem with that confounded ORM. The guy who designed it really did have some ass-backwards views on ORM design. I was baffled at his insistence that constraints didnt belong in the DB.)
I dunno. Some of this I like, but if feels like we're making old mistakes over again.
why do you consider it an anti pattern and how does "non dynamic" active record solve the pattern?