On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 10:25 PM, nitish pandey <[email protected]>wrote:
> no ORM doesn't bother you at all? All that science of maintainability is > bs? > >From my perspective, yes. ORM is very much a double-edged sword. http://blogs.tedneward.com/2006/06/26/The+Vietnam+Of+Computer+Science.aspx Short version from my perspective: * You're trading one set of work for another, namely learning the tool well enough to use it well * You're trading a saving in development time (ostensibly; doesn't tend to work out this way in the real world so much) for a performance hit on everything that happens at runtime. It doesn't take long for people jumping into ORM to discover that it's not the silver bullet they think it is. It doesn't take this area of work away, it just changes its focus. Anyone who thinks they can just flip ORM on and forget about persistence is kidding themselves. And in my completely frank opinion I think it was implemented quite poorly in CF 9, hence our reluctance to replicate it. -- Matthew Woodward [email protected] http://blog.mattwoodward.com identi.ca / Twitter: @mpwoodward Please do not send me proprietary file formats such as Word, PowerPoint, etc. as attachments. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html -- online documentation: http://openbd.org/manual/ google+ hints/tips: https://plus.google.com/115990347459711259462 http://groups.google.com/group/openbd?hl=en Join us @ http://www.OpenCFsummit.org/ Dallas, Feb 2012
