Honestly not the worst thing I’ve seen.
I’d like you to think for a moment about CTEs, the HAVING clause, window functions and every other funky and useful thing you can do in SQL … Now just think, do you think that this syntax supports all those correctly?
sql syntax doesn’t support even itself correctly i fail to see your point
Not only is this really gross, it’s also straight up wrong. It’s missing a from clause, and it makes no sense for a where clause to be nested under the select. The select list selects columns from rows that have already been filtered by the where clause. Same for the limit.
Also just gonna go ahead and assume the JSX parser will happily allow SQL injection attacks…
I like the format, though.
Honestly more readable than a lot of SQL I’ve read. It even has hierarchical grouping.
I was disgusted by the XML at first, but it’s a readable query returning a sane JSON object.
Meanwhile, I’m mantaining Java code where the SQL is a perfectly square wall of text, and some insane mofo decided the way to read the resulting list of Object[] 🤮 is getting each column by index… so I’d switch to SQXMLL in a heartbeat.
Check out JOOQ.
JOOQ made me realize that most ORMs suck
I kind of like it. I can understand where it start and end.
please kindly send all javascript into the sun and explode it
I haven’t been this pissed off since LINQ started allowing syntax switches in random-ass places.
Sharepoint queries are written in something very similar 🤢
I still have nightmares from the one time I had to use that.
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
Me trying to remember on whose output data
having,count,sum, etc. workOnce 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?
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?Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.
Also, ORMs produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.
ORMs produce good queries if you know what you do. Which requires proper knowledge of SQL, unfortunately.
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
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 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
SQL is literally structured query language
Of course not… where’s the damn <From> tag…?
I want to hate this. I really do. But the problem is… I think I like it.
But how do I know if the WHERE clause is AND or OR?
still more readable than sqlalchemy exceptions
Needs JSON embedded in the elements because JSON is best practice.
The most offensive thing here is the
amount={5}attribute. What is it? It’s not XML.got no clue abot sql. what is wrong and how is it supposed to look like?
this basically xml being made to look like SQL. It’s gross and that’s why it’s funny
SQL is run on the server to communicate with a database. The screenshot is jsx, which is a front-end, UI templating language. Writing SQL this way is cursed
SQL is supposed to look like this: SELECT status, name FROM some_table LIMIT 5
