• xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 年前

      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?

  • Primarily0617@kbin.social
    0·
    2 年前

    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
      0·
      2 年前

      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

database
    .from(table)
    .where(
        (amount) => amount < MAX_AMOUNT,
        table.field3
    )
    .select(table.field1, table.field3)
    .having(
        (id) => count(id)
        table.field0
    )

      …and I bet I just reinvented the wheel, maybe some JavaScript ORM?

    • GBU_28@lemm.eeEnglish
      0·
      2 年前

      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
        0·
        2 年前

        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

      • expr@programming.dev
        0·
        2 年前

        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

  • kpw@kbin.social
    0·
    2 年前

    The most offensive thing here is the amount={5} attribute. What is it? It’s not XML.

    • somePotato@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 年前

      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.

  • expr@programming.dev
    0·
    2 年前

    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…