[scrollaway]

Like I said, it's one example.

ORMs are to SQL what static types are to programming languages. The conversation we just had was me giving you one example of the benefit of static types, which happens to showcase a huge weakness in dynamic typing:

- How painful is it to rename a class attribute?

=> It's a long search & replace exercise which results in a less-than-certain outcome.

The obvious take from this isn't that "renaming class attributes is rare".

[LunaSea]

This is a very simplistic view of the situation.

ORMs have very basic support of current SQL standards and database specific features.

This means that using an ORM reduces the power of the database choice you made.

Also things like arbitrary SQL support imply you have to manually creat return value typings.

Having to leave the nice ORM wrapper functions for arbitrary SQL means you lose all the ORM niceties like soft deleted or updated_at fields

Overall I see very little use for ORMs.