4 ms·
> object-relational mapping has gotten vastly better than it was in 2004 Maybe so, but it still seems like it's only good for prototyping. With each new versio
by SonicSoul 14y ago
> object-relational mapping has gotten vastly better than it was in 2004
Maybe so, but it still seems like it's only good for prototyping. With each new version of ORM i get excited and try to implement it, but sooner or later it comes to bite me in the ass, and long term maintenance becomes more painful than not using ORM with all the low level hacks that need to be added and tricky management of the mapping config.
- ryanbrunner 14y agoI think the key difference, at least among most developers I work with, is that ORM has evolved from a complete abstraction of all relational querying, into more of a productivity tool that can be useful in certain circumstances. The differences between something like Hibernate and something like ActiveRecord is pretty vast, at least in terms of usage, and I think one of the key learnings we've made since 2004 is that it's not practical or feasible to treat ORM as a silver bullet. Honestly, no one should be surprised that ORM isn't a silver bullet. NoSQL isn't either - there's plenty of caveats that should be considered before deciding on using NoSQL. I'd still argue that about 80% of database interactions can be solved by a decent ORM. Anything that lets me ignore 80% of my trivial problems and focus on the 20% that's actually challenging is a net win in my book.