The most important feature of RdbMs is the Relationships for me and the «on delete/on update» combined with FKI and constraint. It makes possible to have complex in relationship that are consistent and that can be added/removed without destroying the consistency of the state in the DB. And most ORM only people I know overlook this part, which is a must for transactionality. Your data stay consistent other time.
Also, people tend to think querying with ORM are cool. They often query DB as random access record. However for me complex query are more like intersection, symmetric difference, union of records based on their joins. And SQL is so good at it.
ORM can have hook on transactions, making it possible to call a webservice on commit and rollback.
ORM can have mixins to help with having password handled carefully.
So, what is wrong at my opinion, is neither SQL nor ORM but the idea that only one is enough to learn.
I also like true RDBMS.
The most important feature of RdbMs is the Relationships for me and the «on delete/on update» combined with FKI and constraint. It makes possible to have complex in relationship that are consistent and that can be added/removed without destroying the consistency of the state in the DB. And most ORM only people I know overlook this part, which is a must for transactionality. Your data stay consistent other time.
Also, people tend to think querying with ORM are cool. They often query DB as random access record. However for me complex query are more like intersection, symmetric difference, union of records based on their joins. And SQL is so good at it.
ORM can have hook on transactions, making it possible to call a webservice on commit and rollback.
ORM can have mixins to help with having password handled carefully.
So, what is wrong at my opinion, is neither SQL nor ORM but the idea that only one is enough to learn.