in reply to Terminology: Is DBIx::Class an ORM?
Opinion wrap-up: LanX: poses the question. It sounds like he seeks to get DBIC to be exempt from the bad reputation that ORM's have for some/many (?) people (never mind whether the bad rep is deserved or not) by way of un-ORMing it into something else. LanX's colleague: DBIC is ORM (sounds like bad feelings) cavac: Sounds kinda slow (= bad feelings) haukex: DBIC is ORM (no bad feelings) haj: DBIC is ORM (maybe some bad feelings but blames DBA) Arunbear: DBIC is an ORM (no bad feelings) erix: 'who needs ORM or ORMy stuff?!' - bad feelings, but not deeply: I can imagine that it can be handy when: - multiple underlying DBMS (although, I severely doubt - SQL/DBMS-challenged developers, or DBAs keeping devs at arms' length of the DB. - separating SQL from applications in large projects (in smaller projects much less useful, I'd say; maybe even bad Looking at that (alas, n=small), it is conspicuous that there are no strong arguments in favour of ORMs nor is there any strong language against ORMs. Maybe the difference is not so important, whatever the terminology.
In Section
Seekers of Perl Wisdom