[Arch-TK]

You seem to be disagreeing on what the term ORM means and using the new, not very useful, and very far from the original definition. I do recommend you look at the literature of the time when ORMs and the "Object Relational Mismatch" became a hot topic and look at how ORMs worked and how people used them. Because you would be surprised to find that it's nothing like what you describe.

I didn't say you didn't want a query generator, or to have some way of mapping things automatically to native types so you are not effectively dealing with native database types.

What you don't want, which is what object relational mapping means / was designed to solve, is to force your relational data into being represented as a graph of objects when you operate on that data within your application.

To finalize:

ORMs use query generation, but they are not the originators or the only source of query generators

ORMs often provide additional validation, but they are not the originators or the only source of validation

ORMs by their definition map your SQL data to your native types, but fundamentally they do it in a way which cannot be made performant at scale. You can map things to your native types in a way which is performant but this would definitionally not be an ORM

[adastra22]

You seem to be the odd one out with a very particular, niche, and nonperformant definition of ORM.

[reactordev]

Agree to disagree.

Your last sentence negates anything you claim.