• Primarily0617@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

    • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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?

      • drathvedro@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

      • expr@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because you never learned SQL properly, from the sound of it.

        Also, ORMs produce trash queries and are never expressive enough.

        • QuazarOmega@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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

      • expr@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Primarily0617@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Disagree, the difference between “week structured” and needing to know the rules of the verbs is pretty big, to me.