I think you are misunderstanding the article; it's not that object models for data are bad, it's that mapping them to a relational store is inefficient and poin

I think you are misunderstanding the article; it's not that object models for data are bad, it's that mapping them to a relational store is inefficient and pointless. The point against ORMs is not that they have inferior APIs -- in fact I say how bad SQL is. The point is that they wrap quite nice APIs around an inappropriate data store. If you have an object-like in-memory data structure, why not use an object store and have it in your data as well? The relational nature of your store is working against you. If your ORM exists to keep 90% of the database code hidden, why not dispense with the RDBMS entirely and lose that useless 90%?