On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:41 PM Brian Dunavant <dunav...@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 lost count of the massive volume of other people's code (especially > ORMs) I've removed and replaced by updating SQL statements to 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 problem spending days learning the > ORM of the month that "saves them time" and writing complex inscrutable > monstrosities with them. > > 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
