It is worth developing without ORM, because today I want to develop an ERP, but I have no knowledge in any framework , is it worth doing everything at hand? Will I have the same result?
Well, I realize that I'm wasting a lot of development time to understand how Entity works, and when I get into a problem, I feel I can not solve it myself.
By chance on the performance issue only using pure SQL, is it more feasible than an ORM?
That's true, there are a lot of people who do without an ORM or using a simplified ORM like Dapper . And that's what gives you an objective answer.
There are several advantages to doing so, it has some disadvantages as well, but I will say one thing that is just my opinion: most projects do not need an ORM, or at least few have great benefits. >
A good part of ORM's gain has to do with how it develops, such as the type of architecture and design it adopts.
It is obvious that without using a few things that are ready you will have to do at hand. If you know how to do well it can be a good thing because it is more adapted to your need and you will understand how everything works. Of course you run the frankestein , can generate excessive work, little flexibility, ease of maintenance, etc. There goes the quality of who is doing. If you do well and can reuse in other projects you can compensate as EF learning is not really simple.
What's good for you, no one can answer. You will spend time in any case. A simple ORM or direct access has other advantages. It is true that many of them are not needed on most projects. It's almost a decision of what problem you want to deal with.
Ironically less experienced developers tend to do better with ORM since it delivers a lot of things that only an experienced developer can do without ORM.
The truth is that only with experience can you make an appropriate decision.
