A very entertaining article getting most of the things right:
So clever programmers looked at this ridiculous edifice and realized the real problem: the data store and the use-case were mismatched. So they threw away ORM, SQL, and RDBMS, and wrote lovely new key-value stores, or object stores, or document stores, or searchable indexes, or any of a half-dozen other data structures that more closely matched what they were trying to do.
Is your data really just a giant hash lookup? Then a key-value store is what you want. Do you primarily access your related data via a single key? Then a document store is for you. Do you need full-text searching? Then, dear god, use a text-indexing engine, not an RDBMS. Do you need to answer questions about your data that you can’t predict in advance? Then make sure your data also ends up in an RDBMS. Maybe not in real-time, maybe summarized rather than in raw form, but somehow.
The only part I don’t agree with is the part saying that ORM has been created to deal with SQL. The reason behind ORMs is object-relational impedance mismatch:
I want to be very, very clear about this: ORM is a stupid idea.
The birth of ORM lies in the fact that SQL is ugly and intimidating (because relational algebra is pretty hard, and very different to most other types of programming). Our programs already have an object-oriented model, and we already know one programming language — why learn a second language, and a second model? Let’s just throw an abstraction layer on top of this baby and forget there’s even an RDBMS down there.
You’ve stored your data in a way that doesn’t match your primary use-case, accessible via a language that you are not willing to learn. Your solution is to keep the store and the language and just wrap them in abstraction?
And the end of the post is fantastic:
So go forth, use your OMADS, keep an RDBMS in your back pocket, and stop being so mean to poor old SQL.