To be clear, we're talking about what would more reasonably be called a query builder, but which for some reason has taken on the "ORM" monicker. Ever since dua

To be clear, we're talking about what would more reasonably be called a query builder, but which for some reason has taken on the "ORM" monicker. Ever since duality views were invented, it's questionable how relevant ORMs (in the original sense) even are – maybe as a remaining stop gap for working with DB engines that haven't yet acquired such a feature. I'm not sure if "add" is the right framing, but I posit the reason people reach for query builders/ORMs is: 1. Because SQL is not reasonably composable. 2. Because SQL syntax is horrid. 3. Because SQL implementations are terribly inconsistent. Adding some layer of protection above the pitfalls Codd speaks to in this paper is an additional benefit, but I don't expect that is a driving motivator; still something to address. I'm probably forgetting other things, but something that tackles those issues would go a long way in reliving any desire to add another abstraction, with its own set of problems, on top.