Programmer Humor @programming.dev sunnie @lemmy.ca 10 mo. ago

no.. just no

You're viewing a single thread.

95 comments

if you don't believe that adding more structure to the absolute maniacal catastrophe that is sql is a good thing then i'm going to start to have doubts about your authenticity as a human being
- If you think this is more structured than traditional SQL, I really disagree. Is this a select * query, it's ambiguous. Also what table is being queried here there's no from or other table identifier.
- Me trying to remember on whose output data having, count, sum, etc. work
  
  Once you know functions you would have no reason to go back.
  I propose we make SQL into this:
  
  const MAX_AMOUNT = 42, MIN_BATCHES = 2 database .from(table) .where( (amount) => amount < MAX_AMOUNT, table.field3 ) .select(table.field1, table.field3) .group_by(table.field1) .having( (id) => count(id) >MIN_BATCHES table.field0 )
  
  (Sorry for any glaring mistakes, I'm too lazy right now to know what I'm doing)
  
  ..and I bet I just reinvented the wheel, maybe some JavaScript ORM?
  
  Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.
  
  Also, ORMs produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.
  
  Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.
  
  You might be right, though, to be fair, I also keep forgetting syntax of stuff when I don't use it very often (read SQL (._.`))
  
  Also, ORMa produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.
  
  I meant to say that I would like the raw SQL syntax to be more similar to other programming languages to avoid needing to switch between thinking about different flows of logic
  
  ORMs produce good queries if you know what you do. Which requires proper knowledge of SQL, unfortunately.
  
  Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.
  
  Anyway, I'm really against the "having" tag. You need another keyword so that you can apply your filter after the group by?
  
  Well, if you lose the OOPism of those dots, we can talk.
  
  That's a good point, I didn't even think about it, maybe a more functional style would make more sense?
  
  Boy then are you going to hate QUALIFY
  
  Yes, I do. It's a lot of effort and hidden functionality to try to paper over the fact that the statements do not compose.
  
  having is less annoying way of not doing needless/bug-prone repetition. if you select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol you can add having lol > 42 in mysql, whereas without (ie in pgsql) you’d need to do where someCalculatedValue(someInput) > 42, and make sure changes to that call stay in sync despite how far apart they are in a complex sql statement.
  
  Postgres has the having clause. If it didn't, that wouldn't work, as you can't use aggregates in a where. If you have to make do without having, for some reason, you can use a subquery, something like select * from (select someCalculatedValue(someInput) as lol) as stuff where lol > 42, which is very verbose, but doesn't cause the sync problem.
  
  Also, I don't think they were saying the capability having gives is bad, but that a new query language should be designed such that you get that capability without it.
  
  Check out Spark: https://github.com/apache/spark/blob/master/examples/src/main/python/sql/basic.py
  
  Thanks for the suggestion! It looks interesting, not quite what I expected looking at that file*, but that may very well be better
  
  Edit: other examples seem a bit more similar to mine, cool!
  
  most languages have some first or third party lib that implements a query builder
  
  No. The arrow function in where eliminates any possibility of using indexes. And how do you propose to deal with logical expressions without resorting to shit like .orWhereNot() and callback hell? And, most importantly, what about joins?
- Huh? Sql is one of the most powerful, action packed (as in you can move lots of shit with few commands) languages out there.
  
  It's transferable and ubiquitous.
  
  powerful isn't the same as well-structured
  
  it was written to be a language that anybody could read or write as well as english, which just like every other time that's been tried, results in a language that's exactly as anal about grammar as C or Python except now it's impossible to remember what that structure is because adding anything to the language to make that easier is forbidden
  
  when you write a language where its designers were so keen for it to remain human readable that they made deleting all rows in a table the default action, i don't think "well structured" can be used to describe it
  
  Disagree, the difference between "week structured" and needing to know the rules of the verbs is pretty big, to me.
- but sql doesn't need to be structured that's what abstraction layers and models are for
  
  SQL is literally structured query language
  
  SQL is incredibly structured. It's also a very good language, and developers need to stop piling on junk on top of it and producing terrible queries. Learn the damn language. It's not that hard

You've viewed 95 comments.