Althought interesting product, it just makes me believe that many people are using ORMs simply because they don't have SQL under their belt.
The query they describe as 'monstrosity' is actually easy, understandable & typical stuff to do on the relational db. When I was taught CS stuff, you consciously chose relational db just because you could do things like that. If you didn't plan it, you wouldn't use such db in the first place.
My point is, why to popularize the approach that you should run away from SQL as much as possible and not tune it to your needs? Because that's what authors propose. SQL is not XX-century obsolescence and is not hard to learn. I always thought people, as me, are using ORMs to utilize some convenient coding pattern, not to be hopefully in a safe distance from all that SQL thingy. Am I so naive?
>My point is, why to popularize the approach that you should run away from SQL as much as possible and not tune it to your needs?
It's a business decision. More developers will use their product if it's easier to integrate. ActiveRecord acts_as_blank plugins are fairly simple to write and even easier to use.
Angry VC: Well why aren't more people using Directed Edge?
DE CEO: We could have built this plugin but we want more people to be fluent in raw SQL. It's better for the craft of CS.
I understand where you're coming from, but the benefit of using an ORM should be quite obvious in this case.
Also, I found that the more I understood about SQL, the more pleasant it was to use ActiveRecord. Sometimes its "magic" can be a pain, but when it works, it really works well. I can't help but smile when I think of all the time it's saved me.
OK I can see a business plan in it and I can't blame people for choosing one way of earning money over another.
Still this is quite sign of the times we live in. If someone's putting most of his service from the pieces hosted elsewhere, what it will be? I can say that it'll be probably sloooow ;)
Anyway I share your sentiment towards ORMs, with a little difference that I prefer data mapper (as a pattern) over active record (as a pattern). Active record locks you in the ghetto where the only primary source of the schema information are your artificially crafted ORM-dependent tables, where in data mapper the database itself can give this information to you via reflection of the "real" tables. This is priceless when dealing not only with legacy databases but also with effects of ad-hoc operational fixes, which in turn can save your production sometimes. Data mapper has got also object identities right.
The query they describe as 'monstrosity' is actually easy, understandable & typical stuff to do on the relational db. When I was taught CS stuff, you consciously chose relational db just because you could do things like that. If you didn't plan it, you wouldn't use such db in the first place.
My point is, why to popularize the approach that you should run away from SQL as much as possible and not tune it to your needs? Because that's what authors propose. SQL is not XX-century obsolescence and is not hard to learn. I always thought people, as me, are using ORMs to utilize some convenient coding pattern, not to be hopefully in a safe distance from all that SQL thingy. Am I so naive?