552
no.. just no (lemmy.ca)
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Witchfire@lemmy.world 151 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Honestly more readable than a lot of SQL I've read. It even has hierarchical grouping.

[-] somePotato@sh.itjust.works 54 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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.

[-] cmdrkeen@programming.dev 23 points 2 years ago

React basically figured out how to make XML work.

Remember, XML was actually designed for use cases like this, that’s why it came with XPath and XSLT, which let you make it executable in a sense by performing arbitrary transformations on an XML tree.

Back in the day, at my first coding job, we had an entire program that had a massive data model encoded in XML, and we used a bunch of XSL to programmatically convert that into Java objects, SQL queries, and HTML forms. Actually worked fairly well, except of course that XSL was an awful language to do that all in.

React simply figured out how to use JavaScript as the transformation language instead.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] reimufumo@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago

true, but having it look like a component might get annoying. since this is likely to stay at the top, having an island of non components between two components might make it hard to see where functions start and end. and if this isn't used directly inside a component it'll just look dumb and inefficient (this also looks like it'll take way more to edit once you change something)

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] cmdrkeen@programming.dev 86 points 2 years ago

Honestly not the worst thing I’ve seen.

[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 16 points 2 years ago

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 38 points 2 years ago

sql syntax doesn't support even itself correctly i fail to see your point

[-] cmdrkeen@programming.dev 16 points 2 years ago

Probably no better or worse than any other ORM written in a more traditional language. Worst comes to worst, you can always escape to plain SQL.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] RustyNova@lemmy.world 43 points 2 years ago

Ah yes. That's what the kids call "sqlx" right?

NGL, if it has real time code completion and compile time SQL checks, this is fine.

[-] akash_rawal@lemmy.world 40 points 2 years ago

I actually like this. This would allow reuse of all the infrastructure we have around XML. No more SQL injection and dealing with query parameters? Sign me up!

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 8 points 2 years ago

Assuming it's built well. As someone else pointed out, it doesn't look quite right here.

[-] utopianfiat@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

So you mean like parameterized queries, which exist?

load more comments (3 replies)

I want to hate this. I really do. But the problem is… I think I like it.

[-] naonintendois@programming.dev 13 points 2 years ago

But how do I know if the WHERE clause is AND or OR?

[-] akash_rawal@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

We can say default is and and add an Or node for or. Similar to SoP notation, you only write +.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] expr@programming.dev 38 points 2 years ago

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...

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 5 points 2 years ago

I like the format, though.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Primarily0617@kbin.social 38 points 2 years 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

[-] Solemarc@lemmy.world 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.

[-] QuazarOmega@lemy.lol 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

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

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] namelivia@lemmy.world 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

When you are assigned to write database queries at work and your academical background is that online react bootcamp

[-] cupcakezealot 28 points 2 years ago

please kindly send all javascript into the sun and explode it

[-] db2@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago

That's XML though.. not that I'm disagreeing.

[-] huginn@feddit.it 26 points 2 years ago

Not XML. JSX. It's javascript's answer to markup.

[-] db2@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago
[-] dukk@programming.dev 9 points 2 years ago

The worst of both worlds…

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] mvirts@lemmy.world 26 points 2 years ago

Remember kids, JSX is just function calls. It can't hurt you.

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

Oh it can and it did.

[-] kpw@kbin.social 24 points 2 years ago

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

[-] ABC123itsEASY@lemmy.world 24 points 2 years ago

It's a react component and that would be the proper way to give a numerical value in jsx

[-] Huschke@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

JSX has grown beyond react, so without further context it doesn't have to be react.

[-] MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago

It's JSX. It's used to embed markup into javascript

[-] sndrtj@feddit.nl 7 points 2 years ago

It's to embed Javascript into embedded markup in Javascript

[-] normalexit@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

This idea is bad and whoever came up with it should feel bad.

[-] III@lemmy.world 10 points 2 years ago

It never ceases to amaze me how far idiots will go to avoid learning the most simple things. SQL isn't hard, people's difficulty with it says a lot more about them than it does SQL.

[-] emptyother@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago

People think in different ways. What might seem logical to you might look alien to another. I know SQL well enough to optimize queries, but I find it a lot easier to think about and write queries as LINQ methods. A lot more cleaner and logical to my brain.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] JoYo@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 years ago

still more readable than sqlalchemy exceptions

[-] Thcdenton@lemmy.world 13 points 2 years ago
[-] adhocfungus@midwest.social 13 points 2 years ago
[-] dylanTheDeveloper@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

Omg that's terrible! Link?

[-] mlg@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

"HTTP and the Web is a totally reliable and easy to use internet protocol"

[-] istoff@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

Is that select * ?

I expect it looks more cumbersome with joins and multiple columns from different tables.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023
552 points (100.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

25407 readers
1590 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS