Only for basic objects. The minute you add relationships your approach becomes u...

wtetzner · 2024-10-23T00:56:01 1729644961

No it doesn't. Why would relationships matter? You handle the relationships in SQL queries, and just copy query results to structs.

stickfigure · 2024-10-23T01:16:23 1729646183

> copy query results to structs

Congratulations, you've invented an ORM.

wtetzner · 2024-10-30T12:45:53 1730292353

This is clearly not what anyone means when they say they don't want an ORM.

An ORM library maps an entire relational database to a graph of objects, with the intention of abstracting away the relational database. Copying query results to structs doesn't actually do any of that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object%E2%80%93relational_ma...

threeseed · 2024-10-23T01:51:24 1729648284

Majority of ORMs really are nothing more than this.

But then it's nice to have something that generates optimised, database-specific SQL, can handle date/number conversion, supports many-many relationships, converting BLOB to binary streams etc.

ursuscamp · 2024-10-23T01:39:32 1729647572

That’s 1% of an ORM.

stickfigure · 2024-10-23T16:45:31 1729701931

It's at least 30% of most ORMs. And if your homebrew ORM actually gets wide use, it'll grow from there.

Source: Wrote an ORM that other people actually use. Still adding features, twelve years later.