I’ve written a few ORMs and you have the same performance executing a select and getting rows back and translating them into objects than you do my ORMs. It’s literally the same. Are you going to return back a Row* from your function? No. You’re going to return an object or an array. Building that from an array of rows is no different than an ORM mapping those rows for you using instructions on what field goes where.
Just like you do in your function to build an object. “Oh but it’s at compile time!” You’ll shout. So are mine. CodeGen exists. The real issue you experience is that a certain style of ORMs confuse you. Unit of work or ActiceRecord pattern style ORMs can literally be codegen’ed into your binary to make mapping as fast as new() {}.
ORMs provide you with objects and relationships. Some of them even do validation should you choose. It’s about correctness and not going Wild West on your database with no regard to schema or normalization. If you’re properly normalized, you’ll be thankful for ORMs saving you from the JOIN hell you so desperately hang on to.
You seem to be disagreeing on what the term ORM means and using the new, not very useful, and very far from the original definition. I do recommend you look at the literature of the time when ORMs and the "Object Relational Mismatch" became a hot topic and look at how ORMs worked and how people used them. Because you would be surprised to find that it's nothing like what you describe.
I didn't say you didn't want a query generator, or to have some way of mapping things automatically to native types so you are not effectively dealing with native database types.
What you don't want, which is what object relational mapping means / was designed to solve, is to force your relational data into being represented as a graph of objects when you operate on that data within your application.
To finalize:
ORMs use query generation, but they are not the originators or the only source of query generators
ORMs often provide additional validation, but they are not the originators or the only source of validation
ORMs by their definition map your SQL data to your native types, but fundamentally they do it in a way which cannot be made performant at scale. You can map things to your native types in a way which is performant but this would definitionally not be an ORM
I’ve written a few ORMs and you have the same performance executing a select and getting rows back and translating them into objects than you do my ORMs. It’s literally the same. Are you going to return back a Row* from your function? No. You’re going to return an object or an array. Building that from an array of rows is no different than an ORM mapping those rows for you using instructions on what field goes where.
Just like you do in your function to build an object. “Oh but it’s at compile time!” You’ll shout. So are mine. CodeGen exists. The real issue you experience is that a certain style of ORMs confuse you. Unit of work or ActiceRecord pattern style ORMs can literally be codegen’ed into your binary to make mapping as fast as new() {}.
ORMs provide you with objects and relationships. Some of them even do validation should you choose. It’s about correctness and not going Wild West on your database with no regard to schema or normalization. If you’re properly normalized, you’ll be thankful for ORMs saving you from the JOIN hell you so desperately hang on to.