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.

  • Comment on Re: Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?
by LanX (Sage) on Jun 04, 2021 at 14:40 UTC