OO (as a data container or not) fits into some domains very well. Gonna get stuff from a database? Objects are great. Want to move something without being accidentally written/corrupted? Objects are great. Want to model a 3D object with per node/face/$ANYTHING properties, objects are great.
Does object handle everything? Of course not, but having it as a capability at hand allows some neat tricks and tidy code.
I believe every problem needs a different mix of capabilities/features, and that particular mix directs my choice about which tools to use. This mindset always served me well, but who knows, maybe I'm the dumbest one in the room.
No, just putting the results in a set of objects as boxes and move them along. I don't use ORM layers. Just put the returning data from the DB directly into their neat boxes, string them along in a vector, and pass along.
I also write my templated queries myself and talk with the server directly. No need to go "FizzBuzz Enterprise Edition" for a simple task.
When the data you need isn't entirely contained w/in those "neat boxes" you realize quickly the error was trying to force those "neat boxes" onto your data model.
Before starting to code any application, I tend to verify the ideas by first doing the design on my mind, then spending some time with a pen and paper, and maybe with some diagramming software. If I can't see the whole machinery in front of me, I don't start coding.
In your case, if the data is not fitting into neat boxes, it's not being forced into that in the first place. I select tools/features according to the problem at hand, not try to fit what I have into the problem at hand. If that requires a new language to learn, I'm down with that too. This is why I learnt Go, for example.
Sometimes the design stretches to its limits. If that happens, I stop, refactor and continue development. I call this outgrow/expand model.
It's not the fastest way to develop software, but it consistently gives me the simplest architecture to implement the requirements, with some wiggle room for the future.
For example, the latest tool I have written has broken the design I made in the beginning, because I overgrown what I designed (i.e. added more functionality than I anticipated). Now, I'm refactoring it, and will continue adding things after refactoring.
Every tool, every iteration brings learnt lessons, which are stored in a knowledge base.
What I am saying is that Objects are not rows. And we sometimes try to force the Object model onto a data-schema that ultimately is more rich than a chain of objects.
Which is not using the most appropriate tool for the job, per your example.
An ORM is _fine_ for stuff that has a fairly standard shape, like blob posts, user accounts, things like that. Lots of relation questions against persisted data end up not being those exact shapes and patterns yet folks generally reach for the ORM.
Does object handle everything? Of course not, but having it as a capability at hand allows some neat tricks and tidy code.
I believe every problem needs a different mix of capabilities/features, and that particular mix directs my choice about which tools to use. This mindset always served me well, but who knows, maybe I'm the dumbest one in the room.