From: Phillip Gawlowski Date: 2010-11-14T23:30:06+09:00 Subject: Re: ORM's - Don't Do It! On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Mike Stephens wrote: > Phillip Gawlowski wrote in post #961199: >> that's all  they are good for: Datastorage and -retrieval. > > I needed to process some data for automated test scripts this morning. I > switched on my rigorously locked down corporate laptop which has > absolutely no chance of getting Ruby on it. So I try VBA and > blow-me-down they've locked out ADOX. No chance of getting that sorted > this side of Xmas so I was forced to turn to good old Access. An hour or > two after that everything was sorted and I didn't even need to write a > line of code - not even edit raw SQL. Since Access contains VBA since Access 95 (before that, it was Access Basic in 1.x and 2.x), and has only an SQL-ish syntax (the JET engine itself isn't compliant to any SQL standard), I don't have to point out the irony in the above paragraph. Further, you might want to look up Data Access Objects (It's a flavor of ORM) and ActiveX Data Objects (another flavor of ORM), which both provide a layer of abstraction to decouple code from the underlying database. In an analogy: Since Access includes a report designer, we can cast off the shackles of the Crystal Reports prison. Nevermind the additional features Crystal Reports offers. > Cast off that ORM straightjacket and explore the bright lights of the > database world. You'll have some fun! You didn't understand a single point I made, did you? -- Phillip Gawlowski Though the folk I have met, (Ah, how soon!) they forget When I've moved on to some other place, There may be one or two, When I've played and passed through, Who'll remember my song or my face.