3 ms·
ORMs only have value IF there's an object model you're mapping to. When working in a language that has good support for relational data, ie support for sets of
by blacktriangle 5y ago
ORMs only have value IF there's an object model you're mapping to. When working in a language that has good support for relational data, ie support for sets of heterogeneus maps, you can skip the whole object model and avoid the whole need for mapping in the first place.
Ruby and Python in particular really missed the boat on this one. I feel like they cargo culted practices from Java rather than embrace the implications of their own langauge's flexibility.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y agoIsn't that what pandas does kind of? You can execute sql queries and get the results in a dataframe which is a dictionary with some convenience functions on top. Do you feel python could have gone further to take advantage of specific language features to improve that workflow?
- blacktriangle 5y agoI was more taking shots at Django. pandas is a great example of doing things right imo and me ripping on python at large was more my web-dev myopia shining through.
- spfzero 5y agoRight, OOP is sometimes not the best paradigm for the given problem. If you're using C# or Java, sure, ORMs fit right in. Ruby and Python, not to mention Lisp etc., offer a multi-paradigm palette where forcing objects in, just to access relational data, just obscures things.