On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:41 PM Brian Dunavant <dunavant@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have the opposite perspective. As a dev/manager, SQL is much more powerful at getting data storage from abstract
concept,into a usable structure, than any programming language I've had the (mis)fortune of using. I've long since
lostcount of the massive volume of other people's code (especially ORMs) I've removed and replaced by updating SQL
statementsto do all the logic, and return me exactly what I want. And typically this also comes with a (sometimes
massive)performance gain.
>
> I've managed many a programmer that would complain that SQL is too hard and they don't want to learn it, but had no
problemspending days learning the ORM of the month that "saves them time" and writing complex inscrutable monstrosities
withthem.
>
> Could SQL be better? Absolutely. But in terms of bang-for-my-buck, I feel learning SQL has saved me more
clock-time,and improved my productivity/value probably more than any other individual language in my career.
Your experience doesn't surprise me at all. Sure; it's better than
the alternatives. An ORM can be a net benefit if you're doing simple
things, but the more complex the query, the more it starts to feel
like you're trying to have a serious conversation through a bad
translator. This encourages programmers to keep queries simple, treat
the database as a big scratchpad, and do all the processing in code.
This easily turns into "reinventing the wheel, badly".
I would argue, though, that the programmers aren't completely wrong.
A good programmer strives for clarity, expressing ideas simply and
naturally, and avoiding repetition; SQL isn't good for that. But
papering over the problem on the software side isn't the solution.
I'd just emphasize our agreement: SQL (or another query language,
sitting in the same niche) could be better. So it should be.
--
Ray Brinzer