ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#2Couldn't agree more and I just recently had few comments on the topic.
Everytime I use ORMs I feel frustrated by the capabilities compared to raw sql.
I feel handicapped in being able to have the data in a way I want.
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#3Here's a 2006 blog commenting on (and agreeing with) a blog entry from 2004 which I vividly remember: "ORM is the Vietnam of Computer Science"...
https://blog.codinghorror.com/object-relational-mapping-is-t...
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#4Couldn't agree more and I just recently had few comments on the topic. Everytime I use ORMs I feel frustrated by the capabilities compared to raw sql. I feel handicapped in being able to have the data in a way I want.
SQL is so flexible. When I put myself as a user, I also prefer those tools that provide nice UI for filter/reporting, but also give me SQL interface to do advanced query, such as PostHog, Resmo, JIRA(?)
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#5How about move the business logic to stored procedures
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#6ORMs are useful when what you want to do matches their expressiveness. For example when I just want to get a record by its primary key. They have their limits, many times when doing complex reports. For that, most ORMs provide a raw SQL function. So just use the right tool for the job.
Stored procedures for business logic can be great for performance when they replace queries/mutations called thousands+ times.
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#7Couldn't agree more and I just recently had few comments on the topic. Everytime I use ORMs I feel frustrated by the capabilities compared to raw sql. I feel handicapped in being able to have the data in a way I want.
ORMs never block you from issuing raw SQL queries. But mapping the results to entities inside your programming language’s abstraction is a repetitive task, ready to be abstracted away. The reverse direction is the same way.
I feel most of the criticism of ORMs come from people who don’t actually know how to properly use one. They were never meant for OLAP, they are for OLTP.
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#8How about move the business logic to stored procedures
Writing my business logic with no libraries, no standard testing framework, and a syntax and overall feel comparable only to COBOL? No thanks.
(Some databases allow writing stored procedures in other languages, true, but that means a nonstandard interface, tightly coupled deployment model, and testing is still awful)
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#9How about move the business logic to stored procedures
My first employment did this. All the business logic was in stored procedures. These procedures quickly grew bigger and bigger and were nightmare to understand and test.
Re: ORMs are nice but they are the wrong abstraction
#10How about move the business logic to stored procedures
Writing my business logic with no libraries, no standard testing framework, and a syntax and overall feel comparable only to COBOL? No thanks. (Some databases allow writing stored procedures in other languages, true, but that means a nonstandard interface, tightly coupled deployment model, and testing is still awful)
There is e.g. https://pgtap.org/ as a testing library for Postgres.