I think that's what made it easy. That's the trade off when you try to build a generic DB access to support the trivial DBMS swap like the article take about -- you end up writing a lowest common denominator of functionality common to all your anticipated DBMSs. I assume Django's ORM let's one do DBMS specific stuff but you happened to not make use of that.
I agree with the article, 9/10, don't try writing wrappers just to support the "easy future swap out". Write them if they make the specific technology more palatable to work with. An example I'm my life: Rails' ActiveRecord is just a joy to work with but we would be hurting plenty if we tried to swap out to a different DBMS.
I think that's what made it easy. That's the trade off when you try to build a generic DB access to support the trivial DBMS swap like the article take about -- you end up writing a lowest common denominator of functionality common to all your anticipated DBMSs. I assume Django's ORM let's one do DBMS specific stuff but you happened to not make use of that.
I agree with the article, 9/10, don't try writing wrappers just to support the "easy future swap out". Write them if they make the specific technology more palatable to work with. An example I'm my life: Rails' ActiveRecord is just a joy to work with but we would be hurting plenty if we tried to swap out to a different DBMS.