541
no.. just no (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
92 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 29 points 2 years ago (4 children)

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

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

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years 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?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    but sql doesn't need to be structured that's what abstraction layers and models are for

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 11 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent