People have been making these same arguments for decades and at this point I'm convinced they are all based on the same strawman:
That ORM's absolve you from having to learn SQL.
Once you understand that was never actually true to begin with you can treat the ORM as a tool that simply helps you generate repetitive boilerplate queries and hydrates result rows back into objects for you.
Furthermore, if your objects are long lived (e.g. client-side apps) then ORMs offer you helpful features like identity mapping, unit of work, and change tracking/events.
I'm also convinced most of the people poo-pooing on ORMs just haven't worked on problems where these kinds of features are useful. I mean, if you're writing a reporting tool that just queries the database and dumps the result to a table then yeah you might not need an ORM for that. It doesn't mean that ORMs don't solve useful problems for other use cases though.
That ORM's absolve you from having to learn SQL.
Once you understand that was never actually true to begin with you can treat the ORM as a tool that simply helps you generate repetitive boilerplate queries and hydrates result rows back into objects for you.
Furthermore, if your objects are long lived (e.g. client-side apps) then ORMs offer you helpful features like identity mapping, unit of work, and change tracking/events.
I'm also convinced most of the people poo-pooing on ORMs just haven't worked on problems where these kinds of features are useful. I mean, if you're writing a reporting tool that just queries the database and dumps the result to a table then yeah you might not need an ORM for that. It doesn't mean that ORMs don't solve useful problems for other use cases though.