Take a look at [1]. Congratulations, you've written an ORM.
The belief that ORMs are evil is precisely the belief that this sort of code should be repeated everywhere database access is performed. If you have generalized routines for interacting with the database with more comfortable abstractions then string concatenation, you are using an ORM, but possibly a poorly tested, poorly documented homegrown one instead of a generally accepted solution that has more eyes on it. You are what you claim to be above.
Which is not bad, lightweight ORM is awesome. You could also debate terminology that these are not really objects, but the spirit is still pretty similar to activerecord and sqlalchemy.
Take a look at [1]. Congratulations, you've written an ORM.
The belief that ORMs are evil is precisely the belief that this sort of code should be repeated everywhere database access is performed. If you have generalized routines for interacting with the database with more comfortable abstractions then string concatenation, you are using an ORM, but possibly a poorly tested, poorly documented homegrown one instead of a generally accepted solution that has more eyes on it. You are what you claim to be above.
Which is not bad, lightweight ORM is awesome. You could also debate terminology that these are not really objects, but the spirit is still pretty similar to activerecord and sqlalchemy.
[1]https://github.com/go-bootstrap/go-bootstrap/blob/master/bla...