Scott Bellware has written a very rewarding article (take the time also to read the links that he has in the article) about the problem that ORM has to get new developers. The main point of his article is that the name:
"The worst thing about Object-Relational Persistence or Object-Relational Mapping is the damned name!"
I think this is an interesting thought. But I do not think that it is the name in itself that is the problem. It has more to do with the associations the name has. Let me explain this.
I am from the VB-community and have been working with this language since 1.0. From the start, and especially since version 4.0, have we been attacked for not being a real programming language because it is not object-oriented. This has done that this community has sometimes been a bit allergic to things that smells "object-oriented". I see the same problem regarding patterns. The VB-community has been slow to take that in. (That is changing now. I think that this year will be the year of patterns for our community.)
One other thing is that Visual Basic is so tight related with Microsoft and they haven't been so keen advocating ORM. I cannot remember that they talked about this before they showed ObjectSpaces in 2000.
As Scott concludes, he will drop the “object-relation” part. I think that this is a good.
I'm going to try my darnedest over the next little while to remove the term "Object-Relational" from my lingual baggage. I may digress so far as to use, "Mapped Persistence", or "Mapped Data Access", but I'm determined to avoid the demonic intonation of anything ORM in hopes that the .NET culture gap can be bridged. If I can do this without needing to call for an airlift from an embassy roof top, I think it'll be a good year.