Is there something easier than ORM?
Kevin Dangoor (Mozilla)
dangoor at gmail.com
Thu Feb 26 07:19:52 EST 2009
On Feb 17, 10:28 pm, alex23 <wuwe... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 3:10 am, Robert Kern <robert.k... at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Its public image definitely suffers from the impression that it's "an ORM" that
> > can be compared on equal terms with packages that actually are just ORMs. I
> > describe it as a very powerful toolkit for solving a wide variety of problems
> > involving SQL databases. One of those tools happens to be an ORM.
> I'm going to have to steal that description the next time I try to
> sell a co-worker on the value of SQLAlchemy. There's always a strong
> reaction against the mention of ORMs, generally along the lines of it
> moving the programmer too far away from the real action. But my
> experience is identical to both andrew's and your's; there is far far
> more of value in SQLA than the ORM alone.
I just saw this thread via the weekly Python URL email and wanted to
add one bit here. When I've been selling people on using SQLAlchemy,
one argument that I make is that if you're using a relational database
for storage but your program is using objects (and good Python
programs do!), then you're doing ORM. If you're not using SQLAlchemy
(or similar), you're likely doing ORM badly.
SQLAlchemy's SQL layer definitely makes it a different beast from most
More information about the Python-list