Revision as of 12:14, 15 December 2010 edit Oldernews (talk \| contribs) 27 edits →Controversy: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:35, 15 December 2010 edit undo Q Chris (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 3,546 edits →Controversy Next edit →
Line 111: There's not a single citation in this new section and it looks biased and like POV OR to me. The "emerging trend" is that ORM is being banned? Where not, it's being used accompanied by "heavy justification"? If anybody can find a survey that asked CIOs how heavy the justification needs to be for them to allow ORM to be used in their organisations, I'd love to see it. How heavy are we talking here anyway? Like a boulder? An elephant? Maybe a Blue Whale? [[User:Oldernews\|Oldernews]] ([[User talk:Oldernews\|talk]]) 12:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC) :Agree, its certainly not my experience. -- [[User:Q Chris\|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris\|talk]]) 12:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Object–relational mapping: Difference between revisions