545

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

[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 29 points 9 months 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 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 &lt; 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