Is ORM still an anti-pattern?

Re:Is ORM still an anti-pattern? by marginalia_nu on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @05:00PM (#36498583)

I think that if you want the most out of a RDBMS, then ORM is never the way to go. The problem being that objects and database rows are not the same thing. Not even a little bit. If you squeeze that square peg through that round hole, you shave off 80% of the point in doing so. Object Relational Mapping is basically a contradiction.

If you are only using the subset where the cost of using an ORM is negligible, you're probably not really using the RDBMS to its full extent and maybe you should consider a document oriented database instead. Relational databases are stupidly powerful if you let them do their thing. Kind of a pity to reduce them to a k/v store.

That said, there's totally a segment of CRUD:y non-performance-critical applications where ORM is a non-terrible choice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is ORM still an anti-pattern? by jakelazaroff on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @05:17PM (#36498794)

Could you expand on some benefits of seeing your data as "rows" rather than "objects"? I'm not clear on what that means in practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Is ORM still an anti-pattern? by marginalia_nu on Tuesday June 27, 2023 @05:57PM (#36499216)

They have operations that objects do not, such as joins and projections. It's a completely different paradigm for dealing dealing with data.

You can take an "object", pick parts of that, take a few parts of another related "object", perform some manipulations on those selected "fields" and view that grab bag that as though it was a whole new "object". There is really nothing like that in OOP.

[ Parent | on HN ]