|
|
|
|
|
|
by raziel2p
660 days ago
|
|
|
I tried reading and understanding the arguments made here, but just could not make any correlation with my day to day experience using ORMs. is it possible that the fact this article is written in 2006 simply makes it dated? it seems very catastrophizing but we've come a long way and are just more aware of how to work with or around the shortcomings and flaws of ORMs. I've often written programs where I'm trying to encapsulate pure in memory state into business objects and run into the same type of issues people complain about with ORMs. programming is just hard, we don't have to be such dogmatists about it. |
|
|
I don't think the article being from 2006 (or 2004) makes it dated (though it does have a date). I think it addresses a fundamental issue with ORMs that will always be there, which makes it a bit of a classic.
David Hang's Django ORM article has a bullet-point section on ORM cons, including "difficult debugging", "performance", "hides underlying SQL". Whereas Neward's article goes into depth on each of the following topics:
The Object-Relational Impedence Mismatch
The Object-to-Table Mapping Problem
The Schema-Ownership Conflict
The Dual-Schema Problem
Entity Identity Issues
The Data Retrieval Mechansim Concern
The Partial-Object Problem and the Load-Time Paradox
If you haven't read the original article, I highly recommend it. You'll learn a bit more about "Vietnam" (from a US perspective), and be better equipped to discuss and make decisions about ORMs afterward.
[My own opinion is that ORMs can be useful (I wouldn't say never use one), but that a programmer should be grounded in SQL and the relational model[2] first, so that they'll know when to, and when not to, use one.]
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220823105749/http://blogs.tedn...
[2] https://www.seas.upenn.edu/~zives/03f/cis550/codd.pdf