This article thinks so, and I was asked to comment on that. I have to say that I agree with a lot in this article. It starts by laying out what an anti pattern is:
- It initially appears to be beneficial, but in the long term has more bad consequences than good ones
- An alternative solution exists that is proven and repeatable
And then goes on to list some of the problems with OR/M:
- Inadequate abstraction - The most obvious problem with ORM as an abstraction is that it does not adequately abstract away the implementation details. The documentation of all the major ORM libraries is rife with references to SQL concepts.
- Incorrect abstraction – …if your data is not relational, then you are adding a huge and unnecessary overhead by using SQL in the first place and then compounding the problem by adding a further abstraction layer on top of that.
On the the other hand, if your data is relational, then your object mapping will eventually break down. SQL is about relational algebra: the output of SQL is not an object but an answer to a question.
- Death by a thousand queries – …when you are fetching a thousand records at a time, fetching 30 columns when you only need 3 becomes a pernicious source of inefficiency. Many ORM layers are also notably bad at deducing joins, and will fall back to dozens of individual queries for related objects.
If the article was about pointing out the problems in OR/M I would have no issues in endorsing it unreservedly. Many of the problems it points out are real. They can be mitigated quite nicely by someone who knows what they are doing, but that is beside the point.
I think that I am in a pretty unique position to answer this question. I have over 7 years of being heavily involved in the NHibernate project, and I have been living & breathing OR/M for all of that time. I have also created RavenDB, a NoSQL database, that gives me a good perspective about what it means to work with a non relational store.
And like most criticisms of OR/M that I have heard over the years, this article does only half the job. It tells you what is good & bad (most bad) in OR/M, but it fails to point out something quite important.
To misquote Churchill, Object Relational Mapping is the worst form of accessing a relational database, except all of the other options when used for OLTP.
When I see people railing against the problems in OR/M, they usually point out quite correctly problems that are truly painful. But they never seem to remember all of the other problems that OR/M usually shields you from.
One alternative is to move away from Relational Databases. RavenDB and the RavenDB Client API has been specifically designed by us to overcome a lot of the limitations and pitfalls inherit to OR/M. We have been able to take advantage of all of our experience in the area and create what I consider to be a truly awesome experience.
But if you can’t move away from Relational Databases, what are the alternative? Ad hoc SQL or Stored Procedures? You want to call that better?
A better alternative might be something like Massive, which is a very thin layer over SQL. But that suffers from a whole host of other issues (no unit of work means aliasing issues, no support for eager load means better chance for SELECT N+1, no easy way to handle migrations, etc). There is a reason why OR/M have reached where they have. There are a lot of design decisions that simply cannot be made any other way without unacceptable tradeoffs.
From my perspective, that means that if you are using Relational Databases for OLTP, you are most likely best served with an OR/M. Now, if you want to move away from Relational Databases for OLTP, I would be quite happy to agree with you that this is the right move to make.