orms

Hence building ORMs as an abstraction layer allowing vendor independence and more Enterprise-y Java.

ORMs are application specific and therefore should not determine how data is structured.

It feels like this is ORMs all over, just now between the frontend and the backend instead of the backend and the database.

There are better ORMs but the built-in Django ORM is plenty good enough.

Given the use of ORMs these days, this is a smaller issue.

We thought ORMs would shield us from DBs change, then noSQL appeared.

Our company did free courses for university students - I've had a talk about ORMs.

Then programmers wrote ORMs and started doing all that stuff in code and somehow managed to seize control of data validation and semantics from the DBAs.

As someone who is just dipping my toes into Rails (but has used plenty of other ORMs in other languages): ActiveRecord doesn't have native left join support?!

Maybe you've worked with ORMs like ActiveRecord and/or Sequel.

> Given the use of ORMs these days, this is a smaller issue The ORM can't abstract away all differences between databases.

This one could be very interesting as I have decades of experience with DBs and SQL, so I was always wondering about ORMs, and sqlalchemy seems to be best in field at the moment.

I'd say Opa's abstraction of data storage is on par with "normal" ORMs (like Django ORM) in terms of flexibility/power ratio.