Re: ORMs comparisons/complaints.
On 1/4/2014 5:02 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
On 03/01/14 21:10, Arved Sandstrom wrote:
On 01/03/2014 11:24 AM, lipska the kat wrote:
Yes, but it's just *one set of complexities*
I get that you're making that point. It's not entirely true, there are
vendor variants of SQL.
Well that's an(other) interesting point.
How many times in your career have you actually changed databases
mid-stream? I'm not talking about prototyping, where you may use a
simple lightweight database almost as a stub for prototyping purposes.
I'm talking about the situation where you have a working application
that's in the wild and making money, suddenly it is decided to change
the database, say move from Oracle to a Microsoft product. The
investment in the existing technology will be immense, switching vendors
will require a huge additional investment in training, licensing blah
blah blah ... yet this seems to be an oft quoted reason for using ORMs
... I have never experienced this myself. How often does it really happen?
It happens occasionally. A company changes strategy. The company is
acquired by another company or part of the company is spun off, which
results in a new set of strategies. It is not that frequently though.
But it is not so important for Arved's point, because there are
other cases where developers need to cope with different SQL
dialects:
* the company uses more than one database (external customers using
different databases, different internal departments using different
databases) requiring developers to use different databases for
different products/projects
* developers changing job where the new company use a different database
than the old company. For consultants/freelancers that happens
very frequently.
The majority of Java developers would use several different databases
during a 10 year period.
Arne