Some backend libraries let you write SQL queries as they are and deliver them to the database. They still handle making the connection, pooling, etc.

ORMs introduce a different API for making SQL queries, with the aim to make it easier. But I find them always subpar to SQL, and often times they miss advanced features (and sometimes not even those advanced).

It also means every time I use a ORM, I have to learn this ORM’s API.

SQL is already a high level language abstracting inner workings of the database. So I find the promise of ease of use not to beat SQL. And I don’t like abstracting an already high level abstraction.

Alright, I admit, there are a few advantages:

  • if I don’t know SQL and don’t plan on learning it, it is easier to learn a ORM
  • if I want better out of the box syntax highlighting (as SQL queries may be interpreted as pure strings)
  • if I want to use structures similar to my programming language (classes, functions, etc).

But ultimately I find these benefits far outweighed by the benefits of pure sql.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOP
    72·
    10 months ago

    I find SQL to be easy enough to write without needing generation. It is very well documented, and it is very declarative and English-like. More than any ORM, imo.

    • Lmaydev@programming.dev
      7·
      10 months ago

      I don’t c#'s EF is brilliant

      dbContext.Products.Where(p => p.Price < 50).GroupBy(p => p.Category.Id).ToArray()
      • immutabletest@lemmy.world
        4·
        10 months ago

        LINQ looks great with the query syntax:

        var productsByCategory =
    from p in dbContext.Products
    where p.Price < 50
    group by p.Category.Id
    select p;
      • JWBananas@startrek.websiteEnglish
        32·
        10 months ago
          p.*
FROM
  Products p
WHERE
  p.Price < 50
GROUP BY
  p.Category_Id```

Meanwhile the ORM is probably generating something stupid and unnecessarily slow like this:

```SELECT
  p.*, c.*
FROM
  Products p
JOIN
  Category c
  USING (Category_Id)
WHERE
  p.Price < 50
GROUP BY
  c.Category_Id```

Now stop using goddamn capital letters in your table and field names. And get off my lawn!
        • Lmaydev@programming.dev
          6·
          10 months ago

          No it creates the first one. You can actually use a .Select to grab only the fields you want as well.

          If I added .Include(p => p.Category) it would also populate the Category property. At the point it would have to do the join.

          Also the table and field names can be specified via attributes or the fluent model builder. Those are the C# object and property names.