Content deleted Content added
m Signing comment by 82.21.217.6 - "→Controversy: " |
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 130:
"An alternative to implementing ORM is use of the native procedural languages provided with every major database on the market. " - This should be removed, it is not one of the main alternatives when discussing ORM alternatives. [http://www.mehdi-khalili.com//orm-anti-patterns-series] [http://dumaslab.com/2011/06/orm-is-an-anti-pattern/] <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.21.217.6|82.21.217.6]] ([[User talk:82.21.217.6|talk]]) 07:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: This section has now twice been deleted (once by me), and twice restored by [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]].
: This section should go, as it's unrelated to ORM within the scope of this article. It's also barely a referenced section, more of an external link with a caption on it.
: ORM is about mapping between objects within the client and an RDBMS. This section is not - it's about applying OO paradigms to SQL coding, to present an object-like interface at the native SQL call level. This is quite a different thing - the objects are in the RDBMS, not the client. If this approach is used for ORM (which it could be, although it shows no advantage for doing so) it would produce two sets of objects. The style of the ref is also one of those mid-90s "catch up" articles, when old SQL DBA greybeards realised they'd missed out on the last decade on comp sci and they needed to get out and steal some ideas sharpish, if they weren't to be seen as COBOL coders. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 10:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
| |||