Re: ORMs comparisons/complaints.
On 1/3/2014 8:18 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
On 01/02/2014 09:54 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 1/2/2014 3:09 AM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
On 01/01/2014 10:54 PM, Arne Vajh?j wrote:
On 12/30/2013 4:36 PM, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
I'll say this: Java language limitations have hurt Java ORMs, and it's
not the fault of the ORM developers: I know a few of them. The JPA
Criteria API is a sign of the apocalypse. It's unfortunately
informed by
folks who are both struggling with Java limitations and have
experience
with native implementations. C# LINQ and Scala Squeryl are
conceptually
light years ahead of Java ORMs.
Much cleaner syntax.
But I am not convinced that the syntax is sufficient important
to translate that into "light years ahead".
We can agree to disagree, Arne. I think ideas like C# LINQ and Scala
Squeryl are far in advance of Java.
I was able to write a Scala DSL a few years ago that would not have been
possible in Java. Similarly, C# - I think you'd have to admit - is quite
far ahead of Java.
I think we almost agree on the grading of the syntaxes.
But we may disagree on the weight given to syntax in an ORM
evaluation.
I just don't see syntax for queries as being important enough
to cause "light years ahead".
Everything else equal, then a nice syntax obviously create
a winner.
Every time I look at the JPA criteria API, I cringe. :-) This
occasionally causes me to use excessive comparisons.
But I don't see how syntax of data access code is not _quite_ important.
Whether SQL or JDBC or JPA or native ORMs etc. Syntax is a major part of
what makes an API readily useable.
It certainly is important.
Arne