On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:33 PM, BladeOfLight16 <bladeofligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why ORMs are bad. They make hard problems *much* harder, and the > only benefit is that they maybe make easy problems a little quicker. The > cost/savings is *heavily* skewed toward the cost, since there's no upper > bound on the cost and there is a pretty small lower bound on the savings. > Micro-ORMs tend to do a better job of not shielding you from (or rather, > getting in the way of) the SQL while still providing some good > result-to-object translation. Whether even that is necessary depends on > your language, though. (For example, in Python, psycopg2 has a built in way > of spitting out namedtuples, which means you get result-to-object > translation out of the box. That makes even a micro-ORM pretty unnecessary. > On the other hand, a micro-ORM that does this well without blocking you > from the SQL, such as PetaPOCO, is a boon in .NET.) > > If you can, your best bet would probably be to find a way to get your ORM > to execute raw SQL (with good parametrization to prevent injection > attacks!!!!) and be done with it. It took me way too much experience > fighting with an ORM on complicated queries to realize that. > Er, *pretty small upper bound on the savings.
