@iknewitwhenisawit@fedinsfw.app
Post #3830109
2026-07-15 10:44 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 2026-07-15 13:35
As long as everything is properly sanitized and parameterized, I agree. Or use an extremely lightweight orm like dapper that basically has you write SQL inline and mostly just does dynamic model binding.
-
@bitfucker@programming.dev 2026-07-15 15:46
I only need ORM to have the flexibility of DSL table modeling for repeated fields. Think, createdAt, updatedAt, id (and the PK that comes with it), etc. After the migrations are written, I prefer to use a query builder
-
@lobut@lemmy.ca 2026-07-15 18:53
Yup. I haven’t touched .NET in forever … like it’s been 7 years or so but I was there for the 1.0 days. I remember running stuff to code gen db tables to objects and NHibernate and Entity Framework and all that jazz. I was just like, “wait, why am I writing all of this if it’s just a project”. Then the Active Record pattern felt limiting when scaling my application. I think after we discovered Dapper and we just stuck with that. It’s a micro-ORM where we write SQL and it maps into C# objects and it just simplified when hydration happens and how. (not sure how much its changed or if it’s even active now, but it was amazing)
-
@ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world 2026-07-15 23:47
It’s funny, I know exactly zero programmers (and this includes myself) who didn’t initially encounter SQL and decide it was clunky and stupid and try writing their own classes to write the SQL for them. I want to think it only took me a few weeks until I understand its actual value and purpose but I’m probably misremembering my past. The worst I ever saw, though, was a coworker who tried writing his own ORM. He had one project with classes named “AND.cs” and “OR.cs”. All they did was take an input string by reference and append " AND " or " OR " to it respectively. I’m sure I never before or since encountered a class that did less work.