Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ORM is an anti-pattern

Comments Filter:
  • It fails to match criterion #1 "It initially appears to be beneficial, but in the long term has more bad consequences than good ones".

    I tried this test:

    Me: "What do you think about DRM?"
    X: "DRM is bad, Sony rootkit, the Mafia from the RIAA, the BSA software licensing, violation of my rights, they should go to jail yadda yadda yadda".
    Me: "How do you feel about your privacy online?"
    X: "Nobody should be able to track me online, I should be able to delete all my information or make it private, employe

    • by tomhudson (43916)

      I misread the title - but the argument is still flawed. SQL is fugly, but that's the nature of the beast. ORM isn't necessarily any worse - or better - but throwing ruby into the mix ... well, there's a reason ruby use is declining []. Okay, there are multiple reasons ruby is in decline ...

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.