3 ms·
That's a neat feature, but as you may already know, ORMs come with their own baggage in the form of object-relational impedance mismatch. There's an entire rath
by lewisl9029 9y ago
That's a neat feature, but as you may already know, ORMs come with their own baggage in the form of object-relational impedance mismatch. There's an entire rather-substantial Wikipedia article on it, so I won't go into it any further myself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mismatch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-relational_impedance_mi...
The sibling thread also brings up similar issues with ORMs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15127058
- twic 9y agoEh. I've used ORMs and SQL extensively for many years. I think the concerns over mismatch are routinely overstated.
- aryehof 9y agoORMs are a solution to the problem of the impedance mismatch between an object model and its corresponding relational model. It's not that ORMs come with the problem. I think it increasingly rare today to see real object domain models anyway - the original raison d'etre of ORMs. Instead it's common to see domain concepts modeled in the data layer and modified by logic (often limited to CRUD) in an application/service/controller layer. The problem with this of course is that as complexity increases, that app/service/controller layer increasingly approaches a big ball of mud. Edit: grammar