Created On:
Aaron Robson

ORM's are Bad m'kay!

Couldn't help but laugh when I read this quote from the article 'Please Stop Making ORM Frameworks':

I’m no great software engineer or even a mediocre one at that, but it only takes a handful of brain cells to figure out that standardizing database access is a good thing and having numerous “choices” in such a practice can only be detrimental to the object.


David K -
Funny guy. He's right though, JPA is a great avenue. Not much need for other types of ORM frameworks.
Aaron -
While I can definitely see benefits in standardization, I'm not convinced that choice is such a bad thing. Horses for Courses. Perhaps a framework capable of working in the 20% of high complexity enterprise scenarios isn't the best possible fit for a project without such high complexity. Or perhaps people can now focus on creating simplifying frameworks on top of the standard mechanisms. Either way, I don't think its so cut and dried - however I admit to the possibility that I'm a few braincells short of the magical handful :)
Joe F. -
Choice is great. The invention of new frameworks generally means a need isn't being met by an existing one. Perhaps others could try building off of one of the aforementioned existing ORMs (see Google Castle ActiveRecord for an example - it's built on top of NHibernate). As for choices being detrimental to the "object" (not sure what he means here) but in my experience there is usually one or two commonly accepted frameworks in any area (ORM included) and a number of imitators/competitors which may be better for a project depending on functionality.
Aaron -
It'll be interesting to see what LINQ (to sql etc) does to the dotnet world as far as ORM choice goes.