545
no.. just no (lemmy.ca)
submitted 9 months ago by reimufumo@lemmy.ca to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
95 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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?

[-] expr@programming.dev 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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

[-] emptyother@programming.dev 3 points 9 months ago

ORMs produce good queries if you know what you do. Which requires proper knowledge of SQL, unfortunately.

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

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?

[-] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 2 points 8 months ago

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?

[-] physicswizard@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Boy then are you going to hate QUALIFY

[-] marcos@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] rubythulhu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 8 months ago

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.

[-] docAvid@midwest.social 1 points 8 months 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.

[-] xep@kbin.social 2 points 9 months ago
[-] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

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!

[-] rubythulhu@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 9 months ago

most languages have some first or third party lib that implements a query builder

[-] drathvedro@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months 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?

this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
545 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

19215 readers
192 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Feyter@programming.dev
anzo@programming.dev
BurningTurtle@programming.dev