5 ms·
No. Classical fallacy: not using an ORM does NOT mean writing raw SQL strings. You can still use a library that helps will all the SQL specifics and even checks
by valenterry 4y ago
No. Classical fallacy: not using an ORM does NOT mean writing raw SQL strings. You can still use a library that helps will all the SQL specifics and even checks your schema for you at compile-time and help you abstract over common logic/operations.
- flashgordon 4y agoThis. In golang gorm has been nicely covering this area. It still feels like sql so you don't start abusing it as a nosql store but has good abstractions to apply common operations across several models instead of depending on too much magic!
- birdstheword5 4y agoHello! I've been looking for a library like this for C# and another for Python - I'm not sure which terms to Google to find them!
- yellowapple 4y agoFor C# that's basically LINQ, no?
- birdstheword5 4y agoNo, usually linq is used in combination with an OEM (e.g. entity Framework) to avoid writing raw sql. From the parent comment, I thought he meant something more like sqlx for rust
- nicwolff 4y agoFor Python, it's SQLAlchemy Core, the SQL-generation part of the SQLAlchemy ORM. https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/core/ https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/core/
- threid 4y agoHave a look at Dapper: https://github.com/DapperLib/Dapper https://github.com/DapperLib/Dapper