[swasheck]

the all-or-nothing approach is prevalent in both camps. i’ve worked in places where a straightforward optimization could not be implemented because it would require the developers to break from the orm-only standard they’d set.

i’ve also worked places where orm were held as such anathema that any orm proposal was dismissed out of hand without any sort of discussion.

[pc86]

As is almost always the case, the middle ground is better. In a few of the larger .NET projects I've worked on we would use EF until it became too much of a pain (or the business rules made the query unmanageable) and then someone would eventually spend a few days transitioning the query into a stored procedure + SQL functions, updating tests, etc. The biggest complaint I ever got from that was that it was impossible to tell what was going to be LINQ and what was going to be a stored procedure. While not an insignificant concern, it certainly beats "oh we can't optimize that 20-second long query because then we'd have to drop below the ORM and 'we don't do that here'" or "no you can't use any ORM even though it objectively eliminates a lot of boilerplate work."

[hk1337]

The all-or-nothing approach is what makes people hate ORMs and go anti-ORM.