3 ms·
This argument against ORM is like just because I need to drop down to assembly to get maximum speed in a few cases I should throw out all the C code and redo th
by ww520 7y ago
This argument against ORM is like just because I need to drop down to assembly to get maximum speed in a few cases I should throw out all the C code and redo the whole application in assembly.
- jtdev 7y agoNo, it’s actually not like that at all...
- mywittyname 7y agoIt's more like writing a Python framework, which dynamically produces Ruby code which is executed, then the results are returned back to Python. Sub out Python and Ruby for any other pair of languages. At some point, your generator framework must be at least as complex as the underlying language in order to produce the same functionality. ORMs seems fine for SQL, because on the surface, SQL appears to be a simple language. But that image falls apart the minute you try and use some (relatively) esoteric, but important language feature.
- ww520 7y agoYes, just because I need to drop down to SQL to use the few esoteric feature in the 1% case doesn't mean I cannot use ORM to make my life easier for 99% of the case. I just don't see the point of the argument against ORM to have 100% SQL coverage or else. Most ORM's allow dropping down to SQL when needed. It's easy to have the best of both worlds.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tomnipotent 7y ago> But that image falls apart the minute you try and use some (relatively) esoteric, but important language feature. No, it doesn't. The only people I hear claim this are people that don't have decent experience with ORMs. Mature ORMs also act as data mappers when you need more fine-tuned control.