in reply to Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?
Opinion wrap-up: LanX: poses the question. It sounds like he seeks to get DBIC to be exempt from the bad reputation that ORM's have for some/many (?) people (never mind whether the bad rep is deserved or not) by way of un-ORMing it into something else. LanX's colleague: DBIC is ORM (sounds like bad feelings) cavac: Sounds kinda slow (= bad feelings) haukex: DBIC is ORM (no bad feelings) haj: DBIC is ORM (maybe some bad feelings but blames DBA) Arunbear: DBIC is an ORM (no bad feelings) erix: 'who needs ORM or ORMy stuff?!' - bad feelings, but not deeply: I can imagine that it can be handy when: - multiple underlying DBMS (although, I severely doubt - SQL/DBMS-challenged developers, or DBAs keeping devs at arms' length of the DB. - separating SQL from applications in large projects (in smaller projects much less useful, I'd say; maybe even bad Looking at that (alas, n=small), it is conspicuous that there are no strong arguments in favour of ORMs nor is there any strong language against ORMs. Maybe the difference is not so important, whatever the terminology.