I feel the opposite, the arguments against ORMs largely boil down to "I can't really be arsed to learn SQL properly." ORMs are a leaky abstraction by nature an

I feel the opposite, the arguments against ORMs largely boil down to "I can't really be arsed to learn SQL properly." ORMs are a leaky abstraction by nature and attempting to use one without understanding the underlying technology will only lead to pain and a developer with grudge against ORMs. I think ORMs compliment SQL, not replace it. Without ORMs, you end up getting a lot of clunky boilerplate trying to do simple CRUD operations to your data. It's a bit like Greenspun's 10th law: "Any sufficiently advanced RDBMS-backed program contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of an ORM."