[bakugo]

> We already have an abstraction for interfacing with the DBMS. It’s called SQL, and it works perfectly fine.

ORMs are not an abstraction to interface with the DBMS. They are an abstraction to map the data in your database to objects in your code and vice versa. It's literally in the name.

Feels like a lot of anti-ORM sentiment originates from people who literally don't know what the acronym means.

[lelanthran]

> They are an abstraction to map the data in your database to objects in your code and vice versa.

Maybe that's part of the problem - you're trying to map tabular data in your database to hierarchical data in your programming language.

Of course there's going to be all kinds of pain when pounding square pegs into round holes. Getting a better hammer (i.e. a better ORM) isn't necessarily going to help.

[bakugo]

Okay, so what's the round peg that goes in the round hole, here? Forgetting about objects and just passing around dicts or whatever with no type information?

[lelanthran]

> Forgetting about objects and just passing around dicts or whatever with no type information?

Why would you need to drop the type information when you stop using hierarchical structures for your data?

[sillywabbit]

You're working with bits. It's turtles all the way down.