> Confession: something about ORMs has never clicked with me.. none of them ever seem simpler than SQL
I'm with you on that. I use ORM's, yet, being perfectly comfortable with SQL my perspective ends-up in a range between "this complexity isn't worth it" and "why not just write this in SQL?".
One of the arguments for ORM's is being able to move to different db engines. Frankly, I can't remember the last time I had to do that for a mature/released application.
Once again, I'll admit my perspective is biased because SQL isn't a problem for me. When I look at ORM code it looks and feels very detached from the database. I look at SQL and everything is clean and clear. In addition to that, you don't have to create and manage a bunch of objects that take-up memory and slow things down. Adding layers of abstraction isn't always the best idea.
I'm with you on that. I use ORM's, yet, being perfectly comfortable with SQL my perspective ends-up in a range between "this complexity isn't worth it" and "why not just write this in SQL?".
One of the arguments for ORM's is being able to move to different db engines. Frankly, I can't remember the last time I had to do that for a mature/released application.
Once again, I'll admit my perspective is biased because SQL isn't a problem for me. When I look at ORM code it looks and feels very detached from the database. I look at SQL and everything is clean and clear. In addition to that, you don't have to create and manage a bunch of objects that take-up memory and slow things down. Adding layers of abstraction isn't always the best idea.