> It’s generally accepted that using an ORM as an abstraction on top of the data layer is a more maintainable solution.
Not in my experience. Unless there has been a radical shift in opinion in the last five years I would say that that was quite a controversial position.
I’m willing to admit that perhaps I’m a victim of the Availability Heuristic, but for any Enterprise application I’ve worked on in the past 20ish years, an ORM has almost always been used and in my opinion they has reduced the a lot of the tedium. I wasn’t intending to debate whole ORM vs. SQL thing, but my point is that I don’t agree that using an ORM necessarily incurs technical debt. I also take issue with author’s assertion that ORMs are used because the developers don’t know SQL, as if to say that the SQL-only approach is the valid one, or that developers who use an ORM don’t really know SQL. See also: TypeScript vs. JavaScript, SCSS vs. CSS, etc.
Not in my experience. Unless there has been a radical shift in opinion in the last five years I would say that that was quite a controversial position.