HN

Comments (276)

• ajx1001
  I think there is no one answer for this. In some cases pure SQL is better, in other cases, you need higher level constructs to be efficient, consistent and less error prone.We have lots of experience with ORMs based on dynamic languages (i.e. Objective-C and Ruby) and if not careful, you can indeed go sideways pretty quickly.Recently, we've been using https://ash-hq.org. It tries to solve the same problems as an ORM, but using a pure functional language (Elixir). You are using structs instead of objects, so it can feel very close to using raw dictionaries/hashes. It also makes it super easy to drop down to raw sql, while maintaining that struct interface at the top.While it does take some getting used to (especially coming from a dynamic, OO language), I'm liking this alternative a lot!
• Menu

  dpedu
  I'm totally on board with the idea that ORMs create a variety of inefficiencies, pain points, and make it really easy to create bad queries or querying strategies. But I use them anyways because the convenience of mapping a row to a code object makes writing programs feel fast and simple. And if you know how ORMs can cause problems and how to watch out for them, you can still get a lot of mileage out of them.That being said, what's the closest alternative that satisfies this - "mapping rows to a code object" - that doesn't suffer the same problems as an ORM? A middle ground between an ORM (like SQLAlchemy, for example) and "your rows are returned as a key/value dictionary where the column names are keys" type approach like Python's DB-API's DictCursor or PHP's mysqli_fetch_assoc. Is there a middle ground here?
• Menu

  iamflimflam1
  Feels like everyone has to go on the journey.ORMs are bad - I’ll just use SQL.Hmm - I need to map these results onto objects I can use.Hmm - wouldn’t it be great if the object tracked changes and could save itself.I need related/child objects - wouldn’t it be great if I could auto fetch them. …
• Menu

  tengbretson
  I don't disagree with any of the major gripes people have with orms and I find SQL to be much cleaner in a lot of circumstances.That being said, if orms didn't force you to explicitly define your domain models about 60% of developers would simply never do it. And you would see differently structured, ad-hoc interfaces defined all over the code base completely entangled with whatever action they are trying to perform.ORMs being a forcing function for domain modeling is enough benefit for me that it outweighs all of their obvious limitations.
• Menu

  bazoom42
  Best solution: Learn SQL and understand the relational model. Learn data modelling and normalization. Then choose a good ORM which does not get in the way, but saves a bunch of boilerplate code.
• Menu

  nodamage
  People have been making these same arguments for decades and at this point I'm convinced they are all based on the same strawman:That ORM's absolve you from having to learn SQL.Once you understand that was never actually true to begin with you can treat the ORM as a tool that simply helps you generate repetitive boilerplate queries and hydrates result rows back into objects for you.Furthermore, if your objects are long lived (e.g. client-side apps) then ORMs offer you helpful features like identity mapping, unit of work, and change tracking/events.I'm also convinced most of the people poo-pooing on ORMs just haven't worked on problems where these kinds of features are useful. I mean, if you're writing a reporting tool that just queries the database and dumps the result to a table then yeah you might not need an ORM for that. It doesn't mean that ORMs don't solve useful problems for other use cases though.
• Menu

  dang
  Related:What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28812506 - Oct 2021 (24 comments)What ORMs Have Taught Me: Just Learn SQL (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24845300 - Oct 2020 (291 comments)What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21031187 - Sept 2019 (634 comments)What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15949144 - Dec 2017 (348 comments)What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL (2014) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11981045 - June 2016 (295 comments)What ORMs have taught me: just learn SQL - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8133835 - Aug 2014 (234 comments)
• Menu

  recursivedoubts
  Why not both? ORMs for the simpler CRUD operations, SQL when it gets a little hectic.The author basically says this in the first paragraph, but the title (and some of the language the author uses) implies that people should just use SQL.It's a reasonable article pointing out some of the annoyances and problems of ORMs (especially in the Java world, where they tend to be overengineered) but there are still a lot of advantages to them if you are in an OO language and they used in a reasonable way.
• Menu

  vandahm
  I generally like ORMs but recognize that they have a lot of problems. The most common problem that I've seen is when an ORM makes it easy to select records in a way that looks efficient but really is not. Strictly speaking, this isn't a failure of the ORM itself -- it's the fault of the developer who is using the ORM and also the developer that didn't catch it in code review. But it's a case where the ORM is making work for everyone and obscuring legibility into the code instead of saving time and providing clarity.I've written complicated stuff where an ORM isn't appropriate, but if I'm honest, a large fraction of what I've done in my career is just making boring software to automate menial clerical work, and ORMs are good enough for those kinds of projects.
• Menu

  geophile
  I used to love ORMs so much that I built one for Java, in the early 90s, and it was one of the main offerings of a startup that I joined. I have come around 180 degrees. My rethink started when a developer at a Wall Street bank said: having Oracle on my resume is valuable. Having your ORM on my resume is not.And then there’s the “now you have two problems” dynamic. You not only have to write high-performing queries, but you have to get the ORM to generate that query for you. And sometimes you don’t want objects. And the schema mapping has to track schema changes.Just write the damned SQL, it’s not that difficult.
• Menu

  valzam
  The big problem is that raw SQL has pretty bad type inference and linting support in most editors. A query builder can still give you a lot of type safety benefits.
• Menu

  andy_ppp
  This is one of numerous things Elixir and Phoenix get right with the database layer, which on the surface looks like an ORM but is in fact a set of clever functions that write SQL using Elixir macros, as well as a system for validation and minimal changes to data being passed to said SQL.I’m surprised more languages don’t copy this because it’s exactly what I want rather than loads of complexity that eventually always breaks down.
• Menu

  noisy_boy
  As someone who started their programming journey with SQL, it just feels so odd hearing about learning SQL being presented as an useful option. I get it, it just feels odd. SQL was considered table stakes in the financial IT world - if you said you didn't know SQL, people would look at you funny.
• laszlokorte
  In my opinion Elixir Ecto is ORM done right:1. the functional/immutable nature of Elixir makes read and writes much more explicit and there is no need to magically track deep mutations of nested objects to translate them back into UPDATE/INSERT queries2. Elixirs support for lisp-like macros allows for an ergonomic embedded query languages that is syntax and schema checked, mirrors raw SQL really well and, frees you from string-oriented query building3. the query builder DSL addresses one of the main weaknesses of SQL query statements not being composable4. The automatic conversion between JOINed tables (on the DB side) and nested structs (on the Elixir side) is done on the right abstraction level to work reliable and and being explicit enough to generate predictable queries.
• Menu

  bytefish
  What usually happens in my experience is, that a home-grown Data Access Layer usually turns into a bad "ORM light", because materializing results is repetitive and tiring work. You want to abstract it away.As a .NET developer I think EF Core has made the right call here, by allowing you to write SQL where it's needed and still use its infrastructure for all the tedious work of materializing your results.Admittedly in 2014, the time the article was written at, I've also felt using OR-Mapper is a dead-end. But in 2026 the world isn't black and white.
• Menu

  robertclaus
  There are simple "ORM"s that just map classes to tables and columns to attributes. Basically focused on serialization instead of query generation. I find those to be a good balance.
• senfiaj
  What's the problem with using ORMs for 95% of the cases and using raw SQL only for the remaining 5% where ORM isn't sufficient? One important benefit (aside from writing less code) of ORMs is type checking which is important for maintainability in large complex projects.
• socketcluster
  ORMs are an anti-pattern. What ends up happening on most projects is that, over time, the ORM ends up generating increasingly complex, inefficient SQL queries behind the scenes. Since some of the people who use the ORM don't understand SQL, they don't realize how inefficient their ORM logic is; it looks like a simple operation from their perspective... It's only if you look under the bonet that you realize that the SQL being generated behind the scenes is a monstrosity. Nobody would have dared write this fugly mass of SQL by hand but from the ORM layer, it looks reasonable... Just a few objects joined by dots....
• wolfi1
  ORMs do have their use but you can easily screw things up. An anecdote from an university: their was a student administration system where students could themselves enroll to classes. simple enough job, one would guess. but there was a catch: at certain times, usually when more than one student logged in, the system predictably crashed.It turned out, that when a student logged in, a join over 13 tables was performed, even classes the student attended years ago where fetched at the login. These joins were clearly from misconfigured hibernate classes, took them some time to reduce the load on the system
• Menu

  pier25
  I was against ORMs until I used EF Core in .NET which I really loved. A good ORM is amazing for productivity and when needed you can always write raw SQL.I don't use .NET anymore but lately I've been happy with Drizzle for TS. It's very performant and expressive. After years it seems that they're finally going to release v1.0 soon.Personally I would never go back to writing all my queries with SQL, manually mapping the results, etc.
• Menu

  sulam
  The argument that really hits home for me, after 30+ years in this industry, is stored procedures. The “Stored Procedures are Evil” argument to me is an artifact of an industry that promotes treating engineers and infrastructure as entirely interchangeable and anything that gets in the way of that is Evil(tm). But what working at Salesforce in the 2000’s taught me is that you can do really amazing things if you’re willing to invest heavily in understanding your infrastructure and specializing the hell out of it. Of course that created Oracle lock-in for Salesforce, but that lock-in was the result of Oracle having capabilities that simply didn’t exist elsewhere that Salesforce needed to scale. I would argue Google took that same idea and 100X’d it by building the capabilities they needed when they needed them. In the case of stored procedures, I think if you find yourself fetching huge amounts of data and then doing complex manipulation to it that you can’t do with SQL, consider doing it with stored procedures in the engine and greatly simplifying your application. It may just work out!
• teliskr
  I use both SQL and ORMs every day. I've used hibernate since 2004. I've certainly had some difficult times with it; but overall it is a net positive. I find that it generally works well and saves a ton of time as long as I stick to my known patterns.
• jeswin
  The problem with ORMs is that they look kludgy without language support - which is why Hibernate in Java looks painful, while DotNet's EF looks like magic. I wrote something similar called TinqerJS - https://tinqerjs.org, which is like Entity Framework but for TypeScript.There's immense value in everything being typed from the API down to the DB queries. // EF-inspired type-safe API in TypeScript const query = (q) => q .from("users") .where((u) => u.age >= 18 && u.email.includes("@company.com")) .orderBy((u) => u.name) .select((u) => ({ id: u.id, name: u.name, email: u.email })); Of course, ORMs are not for all queries in your project, and may not be a good fit for some projects. That goes without saying. The problem with the article is that it's dismissing ORMs by looking at specific implementations.
• ixxie
  I thought ORMs are trying to solve the problem of type mapping between SQL and your backend language.Admittedly, this doesn't end up being great, but it seems hard to solve this well in other ways, as much as I wish I could write SQL and get types for free.
• exabrial
  The purpose of an orm is not to "stop writing SQL". In order to effectively use a layer abstraction, you must be able to use the layer below the abstraction.
• Menu

  dmeijboom
  My point of view (after 18 years of programming): DO use frameworks (compile-time checked queries if you can) but skip ORMs that hide/obfuscate SQL completely as it will result in slow queries, extra round-trips, etc
• Menu

  pull_my_finger
  I wonder if the real problem isn't being able to write efficient queries, but that developers struggle to add (yet another) programming language. Just use AWK, just use SQL, just use jq, just use xyz. It's a lot of overhead. I would be OK to lose whatever fractional speed difference to be able to write my queries in a different scripting language. If I ever scaled so much that I needed to shave microseconds off my queries, there are already tons of DBs available, maybe just using a different tool or, even better, compile the DB with(out) different scripting support.
• ianberdin
  What ORMs have taught me: just do not learn SQL. I don’t for 21 years of coding.
• clutter55561
  ORMs have their place but they are leaky as hell. RDMSs are very diverse, have different languages, and require different optimisation techniques.ORMs that try to paper over all the differences fail miserably. They become super complicated and generally produce crap SQL.ORMs also tend to oversimplify database design. They are just tables with primary keys, right? Who needs indices? Who needs to think about collation? God forbid anyone mentions physical organisation of the data!Having said this, I do use a very small subset of SQLAlchemy (the bits I understand) in data pipelines.
• prmph
  I'm not sure why people have not hit on the following hybrid architecture that works so well for me.I make use of table-valued db functions (IMO the most underrated feature of relational DBs) to define virtual relations/tables. I implement a set of CRUD db functions per entity. Then, on the app side, I define (or generate) DTO types representing these virtual relations. Finally, I use a custom ORM I wrote myself, which defines a general and consistent storage API, to talk to the db functions, using the DTO types.The advantages of this approach are numerous, some include:- I have full control of the SQL that goes into constructing the virtual table, I can leverage all the goodness of SQL here. I can even define multiple virtual relations per physical table, or read-only relations, etc, all by implementing the appropriate sets of CRUD db functions- On the ORM side, I have all the goodness of static typing, a consistent API for all CRUD methods, a full fluent query DSL, etc- Since, unlike tables or views, db functions can be passed arguments, i am able to layey all kinds of goodness on top of the basic CRUD actions, like audit info passing, custom upsert strategies, some level of record-based authorization, etcBut this architecture does require you to know and write SQL. IMO the value of ORMs do not lie in avoiding SQL; it lies in the capability to express consistent SQL at a higher level of abstraction, but you still need to understand your SQL.
• jemiluv8
  I’d go with a balanced view: you need them both for any non-trivial product. I was recently reviewing a PR that renamed a model, I wanted to understand what happened under the hood. Turns out that mariadb had a rename table operation forever ago and that was used by the orm under the hood. So no need to backup the prod table. Just run migrate and be done with it.PS: I still exported the table before deploying this fyi.
• anon
  undefined
• scritty-dev
  the N+1 trap and having to incorporate eager loading dictates you need to pretty much understand SQL regardless. applying the object oriented paradigm to relational data created Frankenstein's monster which we unaffectionately refer to as ORMs
• avereveard
  Mybatis was a thing even back then... you still need a domain model after all
• Menu

  revetkn
  If you use Java and like to write SQL, check out https://pyranid.comI stopped using ORMs around 2008 because they made the easy problems easier and the hard problems harder. I wanted to just write SQL and exploit all the power the DBMS has to offer instead of fighting with an abstraction layer, so I created Pyranid in 2015 and keep it actively updated.
• nitros
  I really enjoy using Rel8 (https://rel8.readthedocs.io/), so much so that I reimplemented it in Rust (https://github.com/simmsb/rust-rel8).For me I find it's an excellent step up from a plain SQL query builder (with an API such as `select(Foo).join(bar)`) as it lets me both effortlessly perform projections (one can write `(\e -> (e.foo, e.bar) <$> someQuery` to take a query producing rows of `E` and turn it into rows of 2-tuples built from two projected fields.I wrote a bit about my Rust rewrite here: https://bensimms.moe/postgres-lateral-makes-quite-a-good-dsl...
• taatparya
  Ecto in Elixir has a decent balance and is nice to use though Elixir doesn't have objects, but the abstraction layer is handy.
• scotty79
  Back in the day I made few ORMs for myself exactly because I knew SQL. It's not great.
• Menu

  dools
  I always disliked ActiveRecord, but I figured ORMs don't have to be ActiveRecord. I created this library 14(!) years ago not too long before this article was written https://github.com/iaindooley/PluSQLThe idea is that you like SQL, but it gets repetitive writing joins and accessor code. I had always hoped it would catch on as a pattern: no boilerplate, automatic mapping to objects in your code of any query (whether generated by the ORM or passed in as a raw query) and easy to override/dynamically build bits of the query as you pass the object around.
• Waterluvian
  What Python taught me: just use C.These are simply tools. The only wrong opinion is to believe that there’s a strict superiority of one over another. However, the content of this and other blogs can help people make informed decisions on when to reach for each tool.
• Dwedit
  ORMs make it hard to write code that allows SQL injection.
• wxw
  I agree that "learn SQL" is a necessity, but I'm not sure the article makes a good argument against using ORMs.ORMs are just a layer of abstraction. Like any abstraction, they make some tradeoffs that can get you into some sticky situations like inefficient queries mentioned in the article.But, if you understand the tradeoffs, you can use them for what they're good for (standardization & simplification & in-codebase schema definitions & so on) and usually drop down to SQL whenever there's a particularly necessary case.
• sbuttgereit
  Just one quick note...> ...(although things like Postgres’ hstore can help)...Back when this blog post was written, this advice would have been reasonable. Today, I don't know anyone reaching for hstore since the more featureful json support was added.
• vindex10
  It's a bit aside, but what i love about ORM frameworks is that they try to find the universal interface to multiple database backends. For basic CRUD it's nice: test on sqlite deploy wherever.
• Menu

  stephen
  I'm admittedly an ORM apologist [1], but a few of his points articulated as "deal breakers" aren't that bad imo:- "the pernicious use of foreign keys [...] links between classes are [...] foreign keys" ==> that just sounds like schema normalization, which is usually a good thing?- "bending over backwards [...] to generate SQL that runs efficiently" ==> the huge majority of ORM-driven queries are "select * from table where id in ..."; for the queries that are more complicated than that, then yes use SQL! That's allowed!Folks who dislike ORMs seem to have this false dichotomy that "the ORM _must_ be used for all queries", which is a self-imposed/unpractical restriction.- "dual schema dangers" ==> he's exactly right that database should own the schema definition, but then just codegen the entities from the db schema? That's your singular source of truth, no drift. You can do this with Hibernate, ActiveRecord, Joist, many ORMs.- "Identities" ==> ironically I think ORMs (that use the unit of work pattern) actually have net-better DX here b/c you can hook up a graph of entities with just references.I.e. hook up a book to its author w/o knowing their ids yet, which explicitly avoids the annoyance he mentions of doing a partial commit/going to the db to figure out "what value should I INSERT into in the book.author_id column?" (but my author is new) in the middle of your business logic that just wants to "create books".- transactions ==> agreed that "transactions via annotations" ala JPA/Hibernate are terrible, but afaiu all "internet scale" apps these days do reads outside of transactions, and just use op-locking during the singular flush/commit step to the db.Disclaimer I am sure I won't change anyone's minds :-)Edit: in the HN comments, we're debating "the best way to generate SQL", which is fine, but imo it overlooks the biggest value for ORMs: enforcing business invariants.I.e. yes a simple INSERT is trivial is write, "why have the ORM to that!", but are you going to enforce the same business logic in the 10 places you do `INSERT authors` in your codebase? And if the answer is "I write an single `insertAuthor` abstraction to enforce this" then you're half-way to writing an adhoc half-specified, bug-riddled version of what a reactive ORM like Joist will do for you. [2] :-)[1] https://joist-orm.io/[2] https://joist-orm.io/modeling/why-entities/
• Menu

  Kaliboy
  I feel like ActiveRecord has none of these problems, but I also feel some strong confirmation bias.Can anyone that has used ActiveRecord share their opinion?
• comrade1234
  I've been using ORMs since the late-90s with WebObjects (I still have a running product on the internet that uses WebObjects). I've used I don't even know how many other orms. But it's always been a mix of orm and raw sql, so yes learn sql. Especially useful for reporting.
• capitainenemo
  I thought this was well put. https://web.archive.org/web/20160301022121/http://www.revisi...A now defunct site discussing why ORM is a poor map.
• Demiurge
  Oh no, this meme again. Of course you should learn SQL. But also, you can use a library to help generate SQL based on classes and objects that you change, so you don't have to repeat yourself. Why don't you use both?
• zadikian
  I never use ORMs. But slightly before 2014, there was still kind of a reason to use them, getting/setting a whole nested bag of fields at once that you don't care about individually. Json/jsonb now handles that better.
• vova_hn2
  I don't like the title, it implies that the only reason for using an ORM is not knowing SQL, which is obviously not the case.Every time I tried to do a project without an ORM, using only raw SQL, I inevitably ran into:- serialization/deserialization boilerplate. Like, having to manually map values returned by the DB library to object (or named tuple, or structure) properties- poor code reuse, having multiple very similar queries that have just one small difference- extra pain in changing DB schema. Adding a field requires to go and manually edit many queriesAnti-ORM crowd never gives a good answer to these issues.Instead, they push strawman attacks like "oh, you only use ORM, because you can't write raw SQL". I can absolutely assure you that this is not the case. Every time I use an ORM (SQLAlchemy mostly, the one mentioned in the article) I am 100% sure what SQL do I want it to produce and what SQL will a particular ORM invocation produce.
• armdave
  > Most of that has been with SQLAlchemy (which I quite like) and Hibernate (which I don’t)Can the OP expand on why this is? Just curious.
• Menu

  danlugo92
  Also, NoSQL taught me to love SQL.
• Menu

  add-sub-mul-div
  2014: people respond with indignance that they should have to learn SQL now that there's a shortcut2026: people respond with indignance that they should have to learn anything now that there's a shortcut
• r2ob
  ORM is a great tool for data input. Complex output I always write the old and good raw SQL query.
• jdw64
  Use it where it fits, and don't use it where it doesn't.If you don't use an ORM, you'll end up with more boilerplate from mapping code with DTOs. The reason to use an ORM is dirty checking. It's hard to impose this kind of "state" with a relational database. But fundamentally, relational data doesn't fit well with OOP. In the end, you inevitably have to create a layer that absorbs this mismatch. Both approaches have their pros and cons anyway.Isn't it just a matter of using it where it fits and not using it where it doesn't? I wonder if we really have to frame it as "never use this" or "always use that."Actually, on second thought, I take it back. "Right tool for the right place" is harder. If you're on a team, it's probably better to just pick one: either don't use it at all, or use it everywhere. Because either way, friction is going to happen. My earlier thinking was too shallow.
• bob1029
  ORMs are a horrible fit for OLAP scenarios. I've got a situation where I need to load ~40 tables with a total of 100k+ rows and I need it to happen at user-interactive speeds (less than 10 seconds).There is nothing that an ORM can do to help with this sort of problem without reaching for the obvious escape hatch of arbitrary command text execution. The ability to map the tables to objects in my programming environment is a distracting clown show for this specific problem. What really matters is understanding the provider and its techniques for bulk loading records. No ORM will ever be able to touch these provider capabilities on their "happy" paths. At best you'll wind up using the ORM and a bunch of provider-specific SQL anyways.ORMs for schema management is a stronger argument, but only in cases where the codebase/service has complete ownership over each respective database. Any kind of heterogenous workload says that ORM for schema management is a potential nightmare unless you do something like create a project that is only for migrating the schema, at which point I'd argue you could just maintain a source controlled folder of sql/shell scripts.
• andrewstuart
  SQL is awesome and you’ll never get the best out of your database unless you learn to program the damn thing and bit hide behind some abstraction.We do programmers always need a library?Program the damn thing.
• hirvi74
  I am no SQL God by any means, but I am quite proficient. Despite my SQL skills, I cannot give up EF Core.Even when using other languages, I just pine for LINQ/EF Core. It's truly the best ORM in my opinion. Also, even if one does not want to use the LINQ or the Query syntax (I forgot what it was called), the ability to execute SQL is also still a game changer.
• ralusek
  I have the same response every time I hear this: like 95% of application CRUD plumbing is much better served by an ORM. It gives your application typed versions of your data, lets you work with objects rather than rows, which are almost always more useful, is much easier to read, etc. Then for the 5% of critical/complicated queries: just use SQL there. In fact your ORM almost certainly has an escape hatch for you to do that.
• classified
  ORMs may be convenient, but only as long as you stay within their limitations. One you surpass those, things get much more complicated and messy. SQL does not have that artificial breaking point.
• panny
  >just learn SQLImplying I use an ORM because I don't know SQL... I've reverse engineered embedded databases and written directly to the .dat files on production systems that deal with HIPAA data. I'm pretty sure I know SQL better than most people on HN. I still prefer an ORM.Why? Because with my ORM, I can code gen faster than you can vibe code. I can build on top of the abstraction layer. The data model in the ORM is the M in MVC. The backend could be a SQL database, a file system, a REST service, that part is irrelevant. The M is the same, regardless of the backing store. View and Controller code still works.I find most people who are anti-ORM are kinda junior and trying to flex their power to write SQL scripts as if it is impressive. That's why there's always this weird implying that ORM users don't know SQL.
• Menu

  gedy
  One nice thing about the rise of ORMs back in the day was it broke the stranglehold our traditional DBAs had on the data tier. I respected them and their skills, but in a product org it was really difficult to have a separate group that refused to participate in planning and wanted to design everything up front, optimize based on their performance assumptions, and then who would argue with devs when we'd need to do pretty normal things like, say, list users in a webapp.I'm talking about my experience, not generalizing to all DBAs of course. And of course ORMs introduced performance issues, etc.
• jiggawatts
  Something I'd like to see is for someone to finally come to the realisation that the right thing to do is to make the front-end web templating language truly polyglot and support SQL natively, without an ORM wrapper.For example, the ASP.NET Razor syntax allows HTML and C# code to be interspersed surprisingly freely: <ul> @foreach (var user in Model.Users) { <li>@user.Name</li> } </ul> Just picture the same kind of thing, but with SQL expressions freely interspersed with the programming language.Just like how Cargo, NuGet, NPM, etc... can import packages and/or how you can cross-reference projects in build systems, web apps should be able to reference a database schema project directly, importing the SQL definitions without any explicit "mapping". If the SQL changes, the type changes, and the build system picks that up automatically without any additional manual steps..NET with EF Core is almost there, and I've seen some half-hearted attempts in various languages over the years, but it's like the industry has an allergy to the concept.Ur/Web is probably the closest to the idealised concept, and I think that's what I read years ago that put the dream in my mind: https://dl.acm.org/cms/attachment/feb131ab-37e1-4638-be17-ab...
• tancop
  [dead]
• appganvwale
  [flagged]
• ai_slop_hater
  Next step is go down one more level to ditch SQL and learn LMDB and/or RocksDB.
• Menu

  yieldcrv
  LLMs are better at writing raw queries now and knowing the consequences of how it fits in your architecture (if you ask)So I think the ORM debate could be overpostgresql is a beast
• Menu

  ChicagoDave
  ORMs taught me that relational databases are an operational anti-pattern.NoSQL for operational data storage is more efficient and cost effective.ORMs were a regression test that exposed unnecessary complexity.
• nomilk
  > August 3, 2014That's important. Because now days it's trivial for LLMs to translate ORM to SQL and vice-versa with ~100% accuracy. I haven't written any raw SQL (only Active Record) in about two years, and the odd time I blunder with AR and create an n+1 I find out about it via error tracking (e.g. Sentry) a few minutes later and fix it. No biggie.There's also an additional layer of protection in that using AI on the codebase can spot SQL blunders incidentally (i.e. you ask about X, and the AI does X but also says "Not asked, but flagging for your attention: problem with SQL on line 256 etc.."