ORMs du jour?

Peter Corlett abuse at cabal.org.uk
Mon Oct 21 17:19:24 BST 2013

On 21 Oct 2013, at 15:33, Abigail <abigail at abigail.be> wrote:
> My recommendation for ORMs: don't.
> http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx

I've only skimmed that article, but it seems to make the fairly common assumption that OO means Java-style OO, and because ORMs fit badly with his notion of OO and how it might be mapped to a relational model, all ORMs are bad.

Much of the blog post can be basically summed up by "the languages I use are too verbose, error-prone and inflexible that an ORM does not win me anything"[0]. Which is something I quite agree with.

Perl's is *not* like those languages, and DBIx::Class is not like those half-jobbed messes that Ted has apparently been burned by in the past. The people who built DBIx::Class have done a really excellent job of building something rather special.

[0] Ted's LinkedIn page tells me he's basically a .NET programmer who has also touched Java and C++.

More information about the london.pm mailing list