alt Hacker NewsIt's not that your domain is different, it sounds more like you don't know how to use ORMs. ORMs don't have to manage migrations, they don't have to even write into the database. When dealing with a bad database design, it can be a legitimate tactic to use ORMs in read-only mode and have writes still as hand-rolled SQL. You can do database-first ORMs, as well as code-first, where the database design is king, not the POCO.
> The domain deals with a lot of things that are not in the database.
You can have non-serialized properties. You can even can over-ride serialization/de-serialization of individual properties
> The domain is one of many and deals with just a fraction of what is in the database
You can use different ORMs for different parts of your domain, you could even wrap multiple ORMs in a wrapper repo pattern if you want
> The domain deals with things stored in several databases
As above.
> The database was designed in the 90s and the domain is new
Tons of solutions for this, one easy one is using SQL Views, just ask Claude. The weird thing here is that I've now dealt with this IRL like 5 times and came to the opposite conclusion of you. I found wrapping a bad DB design with an ORM a great first step in fixing it, as the ORM effectively acts as an easy strangler pattern.
> It's not my database so I can't change it
You can still use ORMs, ORMs don't have to manage migrations. Though I feel sorry for you working somewhere you still have a DB guy gatekeeping the database design in 2026.
The point is, every one of your objections are pretty trivially solvable with many mature ORMs, because everyone else had the same problems two decades ago and instead of throwing up their hands and hand-rolling their SQL, the ORM tooling was improved.
Replies
That doesn't sound at all like any ORM I've ever used. I've struggled in the past because The ones I've used are actively hostile to laying out data in the database in a way not proscribed by the ORMs philosophy. Heck of the ORMs I've used, one didn't support parameterized joins and the other didn't support joins at all.
---
It's not usually a DB guy gatekeeping, it's that multiple apps use the same database so layout changes are costly.
>It's not that your domain is different
You have mixed the posts you are replying to - the domain being different from the database is stipulated here.
I was giving examples of how this typically happens, and the reasons are entirely independent of whether or not an ORM is being used.
I am fully aware that you can handle any mess using an ORM as well, which is why I was surprised at the original claim that ORM's force proper domain models. I haven't observed that so I was genuinely curious.
Separately from that I have to say your suggestions of things to do to force an ORM into the situation are bad ideas. The complexity of custom serialization, various mapping hooks or attributes to bless individual properties will lead to pain and misery down the line.
Just accept the extra layer of DTO's. They're a detour over pure SQL but are at least easy to maintain and hold no surprises. They say there's a special place in hell for people who write SQL triggers and I think people who override ORM serializers are welcome there. ;-)