4 ms·
Only for basic objects. The minute you add relationships your approach becomes unusable. There is a reason ORMs have persisted for over 30 years.
by threeseed 2y ago
Only for basic objects.
The minute you add relationships your approach becomes unusable.
There is a reason ORMs have persisted for over 30 years.
- wtetzner 2y agoNo it doesn't. Why would relationships matter? You handle the relationships in SQL queries, and just copy query results to structs.
- stickfigure 2y ago> copy query results to structs Congratulations, you've invented an ORM.
- ursuscamp 2y agoThat’s 1% of an ORM.
- stickfigure 2y agoIt's at least 30% of most ORMs. And if your homebrew ORM actually gets wide use, it'll grow from there. Source: Wrote an ORM that other people actually use. Still adding features, twelve years later.
- threeseed 2y agoMajority of ORMs really are nothing more than this. But then it's nice to have something that generates optimised, database-specific SQL, can handle date/number conversion, supports many-many relationships, converting BLOB to binary streams etc.
- wtetzner 2y agoThis is clearly not what anyone means when they say they don't want an ORM. An ORM library maps an entire relational database to a graph of objects, with the intention of abstracting away the relational database. Copying query results to structs doesn't actually do any of that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_mapping https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_ma...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]