• somePotato@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      47
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months 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.

    • sunnie@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months 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)

      • bahbah23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        I think I agree with you both. I’m not a Node developer; could you keep your SQL objects/components in a separate file so that they don’t clutter up other logic?

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months 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?

  • RustyNova@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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.

  • expr@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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…

  • akash_rawal@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months 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!

      • akash_rawal@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Better than parameterized queries. Yes, we have stuff like query("INSERT INTO table(status, name) VALUES ($1, $2);").bind(ent.status).bind(ent.name).execute..., but that’s kind of awful isn’t it? With XML queries, we could use any of the XML libraries we have to create and manipulate XML queries without risking ‘XML injection’. e.g we could convert ordinary structs/classes into column values automatically without having to use any ORM.

  • namelivia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

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

  • Primarily0617@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 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

    • Solemarc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months 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.

    • GBU_28@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        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

        • GBU_28@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Disagree, the difference between “week structured” and needing to know the rules of the verbs is pretty big, to me.

  • kpw@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    11 months ago

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

  • JoYo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    still more readable than sqlalchemy exceptions

    • III@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months 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.

  • mlg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    11 months ago

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