3 ms·

Any ORM provides the same features for any SQL database. There is nothing special going on here. If perhaps the database autogenerated a bunch of classes, maybe

Any ORM provides the same features for any SQL database. There is nothing special going on here. If perhaps the database autogenerated a bunch of classes, maybe that’s interesting? I think some projects have introspected a database and created all the boilerplate language classes before. There is nothing magical about wrapping database objects in language classes. This has been happening forever. https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/orm/quickstart.html#select-with-join https://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/20/orm/quickstart.html#select... Nothing magical about using a function call rather than raw SQL.

esafak 3y ago
No, it does not. Furthermore, if you're using an ORM you're not programming in SQL any more. You're using a poor man's Spark. Spark lets you drop down to SQL in all its APIs too. I don't understand your argument if you're comfortable with ORMs.
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I’m not even sure what we are debating. Spark is for big data work, it isn’t something you would typically use as a general purpose database backing your application. My original point way back is that expecting customers to learn an entirely new paradigm for storing and querying data is a poor decision, and limits your work to niche use cases. Spark has a large niche but it isn’t comparable to MySQL / Postgres or other newish data stores like Dynamo. Furthermore any competent engineer knows SQL because ORMs are cumbersome and annoying for anything except basic use.