[bdcravens]

Working on a Ruby application that uses a database that predates the application (it was originally written in another language), there are simply some things that can't be written in AR, or when they are, the performance just isn't there.

Additionally, we often have to create ad-hoc queries to answer questions from stakeholder. It's easy enough to just pop up DataGrip and write the query, and copy the tabular results into a doc in Google Sheets for sharing.

I think the best approach is ORM-first, not ORM-only.

[WJW]

An alternative viewpoint on that situation might be that the database is in need of some serious refactoring/migrating if the app can't deal with its structure. Trying to bend Rails into non-AR database usage is going to lead to tears sooner rather than later IMO. It's just so very integrated.

Having separate applications with (write) access to the same database is similarly going to end in trouble. Suddenly there are all sorts of problems when the database needs a migration and the applications are expecting different things from the same table. This is not really ORM-related btw.

That said, ActiveRecord is not perfect and sometimes a single handcoded SQL query can deliver a ton of value. Profile carefully.

[dragonwriter]

> Trying to bend Rails into non-AR database usage is going to lead to tears sooner rather than later IMO. It's just so very integrated.

Is that really true? While I've barely used Rails in anger, and not at all recently, I was under the impression that all the major Ruby ORMs and high-level database libraries (e.g., DataMapper, Sequel) are heavily focussed on Rails usage and usually around AR pain points like working with DBs in Rails that don't fit ARs opinionated patterns.

> Having separate applications with (write) access to the same database is similarly going to end in trouble.

It shouldn't, if the DB is designed for that, which usually means each application sees the DB exclusively through its own set (probably in a distinct schema) of views, and keeps it's filthy little hands off base tables. That's a best practice for multiple application access to an RDBMS that is older than the Web.

[bdcravens]

I won't argue that an ideal situation is to stop all feature development and refactor into an ideal data model. That's a technical debt ROI discussion, the kind that we always have, and sometimes the business value just doesn't support the rewrite.

However, even in an ideal data model, I don't always agree that multiple applications accessing the application's database is bad. That's a matter of being thoughtful and communicative, instead of just wantonly running "rails g migration" every time you need to implement a feature (that's true of Monorails even). FWIW, we've never had any real issues with multiple applications accessing our single database.