> running amuck with security issues, database design and proper techniques.
What does an ORM have to do with security?
Or database design?
Or proper techniques?
In reality, the ORM leads to poor DB design and even poorer techniques.
What does an ORM have to do with security?
Or database design?
Or proper techniques?
In reality, the ORM leads to poor DB design and even poorer techniques.
This may be true of the code-to-db type of mapping (where your table definitions are in code and then used to forward-generate the actual database tables) but there is also the possibility of generating an ORM from your database and its relations. I think the real benefit of an ORM is that it's reducing the amount of boilerplate code needed to be manually written in a project.
I agree with this, but when people think of an ORM they aren't thinking of sqlc, which I quite like.
The most-used ORMs perform square-peg-round-hole hammering to save the developer doing anything in SQL, they aren't simply saving the effort of writing the boilerplate (like sqlc).