By the way, the often used the argument "ORM allows to switch from one (SQL) database to another" is illusory.
In practice such a switch happens very rarely, and when it does it usually still needs much debugging and changes to the existing application because the different DBMS just work to differently even when they all talk a something similar-looking SQL-dialect, and most likely some DBMS-specific stuff was used in the application eventually (even when this means circumventing the ORM). Just think what it means that you could switch without any effect from one database management system to another - it means you very likely haven't fully utilized the previous DBMS and restricted yourself to the minimum functionality (lowest common denominator) shared by these very different SQL implementations. These arguments work only for simple cases, so they look nice and convincing on the powerpoint and marketing material, but they don't stand the test of reality. Kind regards, beneroth On 28.11.19 18:06, C K Kashyap wrote: > Hi Alex, > There is a plethora of ORM systems such as ActiveRecords (in > Ruby/Rails) or Microsoft EntityFramework and similar solutions in > other languages where Objects are mapped to SQL DB records. > > I'd love to know your thoughts about how PicoLisp's approach is > similar/different from them. > > Regards, > Kashyap -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe
