Comment by pseudocomposer
4 days ago
The post mentions an ORM, but the docs don’t provide any examples of how it works. How does the Cot ORM compare to Diesel? There are certainly places where I find Diesel falls short of, say, ActiveRecord (like traversing relationships via “includes”/“eager_load”/etc.). I’m not convinced that these shortcomings warrant a separate ORM as opposed to making contributions to Diesel, but I’m open to being wrong. Are there any particular shortcomings that motivated starting from scratch? One thing I really like about Rust dev is the way ORM and API server concerns are separated. Will Cot’s server support using Diesel? Can it be used without the ORM package being involved at all?
About the docs, there is a guide chapter dedicated to the ORM: https://cot.rs/guide/latest/db-models/
There are several reasons I don't like the existing ORMs in Rust, many of them being overly verbose, some generating unnecessary files, and having somewhat weird DSLs being the main reasons. The main reason, I think, was that none of them supports automatically generated migrations, and I absolutely loved that feature in Django. The differences between existing ORMs sound like a neat idea for another blog post, to be honest, so I'll probably do that soon!
Diesel absolutely can be used, there is no reason it can't - database support is feature flag-gated, so disabling it as as easy as adding one line in your Cargo.toml file. This, however, will obviously also disable some other features that depend on the database, such as authentication through database.
Whether building a custom ORM will be a good idea - only time will tell.