23 ms·

I completely agree with you. Every single time someone says: “Just write your own abstraction over an sql generator ”, it eventually devolves into a full blown

by dagmx 3y ago

I completely agree with you. Every single time someone says: “Just write your own abstraction over an sql generator ”, it eventually devolves into a full blown ORM. I swear the majority of these opinion posts against ORMs are from people who must have worked in a badly implemented project that left them with a bad experience and they blamed the pattern rather than the technology. One of the best bits about an ORM is making it consistent for non-db users on the team to simply grok and work with, without creating monstrous and hard to debug joins everywhere. But when badly set up it can lead to a lot of debugging spaghetti. Which is the same as can happen with SQL but I suppose people think that at least there’s one less layer to debug while ignoring the problem is actually how they got where they are and not the technology I switched a project from manually written sql to sql alchemy on a project that’s used by multiple Oscar nominated films daily for reviews. The SQL version was gross and impossible for the team to manage because it had bloated over the years, with no nice way to detangle the statement generations and joins. SQL Alchemy made it so any one of the technical directors on the team could step in and add new functionality, without serious performance footguns. Instead of me having to clean up bad sql every year (projects would fork per film and merge at the end) to keep performance up, I could trust the ORM to do that for me. At its worst, it was way too easy for TDs to get the raw SQL to be tens of minutes per review session by structuring their logic incorrectly, but it was so difficult to see. Switching to an ORM meant I could get the performance down to seconds per session and they couldn’t destroy the performance in subtle ways.

joaodlf 3y ago
> I swear the majority of these opinion posts against ORMs are from people who must have worked in a badly implemented project that left them with a bad experience and they blamed the pattern rather than the technology. Fair. But you then proceed to detail a personal experience on the other side of the spectrum: Badly written code, without an ORM, and how it was fixed by introducing an ORM. I think we can all agree that you can write bad code, with or without an ORM :). Not that this is entirely relevant to my post, I am simply advocating for writing more SQL, not how to write a good object mapper. That's a different beast, and I purposely kept that simple just to illustrate that it is possible to get started without too much pain.
- dagmx 3y ago
  My point with the personal anecdote is precisely that you can write bad or good code with both. however that an ORM can allow for more consistent experience across many more people. My point is different than your takeaway. In my point I’m not blaming the technology, I’m blaming the people involved with using it in production. I specifically point out that a well versed engineer can write a SQL based system well. An ORM just means I can diffuse that responsibility over multiple people more reliably.
  - lelanthran 3y ago
    > My point with the personal anecdote is precisely that you can write bad or good code with both. however that an ORM can allow for more consistent experience across many more people. I find it interesting that you say that; my takes is that it's the other way around! SQL join statements look the same no matter what programming language the reader is used to, but each ORM differs in the way the join looks to the reader. The EF method of filtering your results set in C# looks very different indeed to how the ORM for Python would do it. Every ORM looks different, which results in a very inconsistent experience for people, especially when you bring in a DB expert to figure out why there's a slowdown somewhere, and he cannot just visually inspect the EF/SQLAlchemy code and say "Well, here's what's wrong". DB experts can usually very easily do that just by looking at the SQL, no matter what programming language was used.
    - dagmx 3y ago
      DB experts tend to be the minority though. It’s about indexing (pun intended) on the expert experience vs the generalist experience. Often those may be very competing goals , where nativeness to the primary language used by the team might be more important than the nativeness of the expert.
    - aidos 3y ago
      To be fair, in sqlalchemy you could just do “print(query)” and you’d see your sql.
waffletower 3y ago
Enough people have had bad experiences with ORMs who have decided to evolve and find alternatives. ORMs are bulky and do not provide value to many modern functional, data-first development paradigms.
- dagmx 3y ago
  Why speak in absolutes? Swift data for example is a data first ORM https://developer.apple.com/documentation/SwiftData https://developer.apple.com/documentation/SwiftData Nobody is saying only use an ORM, but the anti-ORM crowd seem to think that there’s only one true way to do things. I don’t know why so many programmers think purely in binary “good or bad”. Different projects may have different requirements.
  - waffletower 3y ago
    Why hear in absolutes? I said essentially what you did: "Different projects may have different requirements" You find ORMs useful, I do not, they aren't mutually exclusive. Also, An ORM is inappropriate for certain forms of inter-team collaboration. Data scientists often prepare SQL that we need to integrate into our services. Asking all at a company to learn a language specific ORM isn't practical. SQL is, for better and worse, an important common tool.
hnfong 3y ago
> I swear the majority of these opinion posts against ORMs are from people who must have ... "microservices" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37125636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37125636 That cleared things up, at least for me. I totally agree that if your job is to essentially write a custom, RESTful, fault tolerant, 99.999% uptime accessor for a table or two, basically you're hired to be the ORM, so you don't want to just suggest people to use a ORM framework and effectively make yourself redundant.

by dagmx 3y ago

joaodlf 3y ago

> I swear the majority of these opinion posts against ORMs are from people who must have worked in a badly implemented project that left them with a bad experience and they blamed the pattern rather than the technology. Fair. But you then proceed to detail a personal experience on the other side of the spectrum: Badly written code, without an ORM, and how it was fixed by introducing an ORM. I think we can all agree that you can write bad code, with or without an ORM :). Not that this is entirely relevant to my post, I am simply advocating for writing more SQL, not how to write a good object mapper. That's a different beast, and I purposely kept that simple just to illustrate that it is possible to get started without too much pain.

dagmx 3y ago
My point with the personal anecdote is precisely that you can write bad or good code with both. however that an ORM can allow for more consistent experience across many more people. My point is different than your takeaway. In my point I’m not blaming the technology, I’m blaming the people involved with using it in production. I specifically point out that a well versed engineer can write a SQL based system well. An ORM just means I can diffuse that responsibility over multiple people more reliably.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  > My point with the personal anecdote is precisely that you can write bad or good code with both. however that an ORM can allow for more consistent experience across many more people. I find it interesting that you say that; my takes is that it's the other way around! SQL join statements look the same no matter what programming language the reader is used to, but each ORM differs in the way the join looks to the reader. The EF method of filtering your results set in C# looks very different indeed to how the ORM for Python would do it. Every ORM looks different, which results in a very inconsistent experience for people, especially when you bring in a DB expert to figure out why there's a slowdown somewhere, and he cannot just visually inspect the EF/SQLAlchemy code and say "Well, here's what's wrong". DB experts can usually very easily do that just by looking at the SQL, no matter what programming language was used.
  - dagmx 3y ago
    DB experts tend to be the minority though. It’s about indexing (pun intended) on the expert experience vs the generalist experience. Often those may be very competing goals , where nativeness to the primary language used by the team might be more important than the nativeness of the expert.
  - aidos 3y ago
    To be fair, in sqlalchemy you could just do “print(query)” and you’d see your sql.

waffletower 3y ago

Enough people have had bad experiences with ORMs who have decided to evolve and find alternatives. ORMs are bulky and do not provide value to many modern functional, data-first development paradigms.

dagmx 3y ago
Why speak in absolutes? Swift data for example is a data first ORM https://developer.apple.com/documentation/SwiftData https://developer.apple.com/documentation/SwiftData Nobody is saying only use an ORM, but the anti-ORM crowd seem to think that there’s only one true way to do things. I don’t know why so many programmers think purely in binary “good or bad”. Different projects may have different requirements.
- waffletower 3y ago
  Why hear in absolutes? I said essentially what you did: "Different projects may have different requirements" You find ORMs useful, I do not, they aren't mutually exclusive. Also, An ORM is inappropriate for certain forms of inter-team collaboration. Data scientists often prepare SQL that we need to integrate into our services. Asking all at a company to learn a language specific ORM isn't practical. SQL is, for better and worse, an important common tool.

hnfong 3y ago

> I swear the majority of these opinion posts against ORMs are from people who must have ... "microservices" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37125636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37125636 That cleared things up, at least for me. I totally agree that if your job is to essentially write a custom, RESTful, fault tolerant, 99.999% uptime accessor for a table or two, basically you're hired to be the ORM, so you don't want to just suggest people to use a ORM framework and effectively make yourself redundant.