2 ms·

Could JOOQ be considered a kind of language for the "elite" in that respect? Those that want the extra power to write queries quickly with type safety etc inst

Could JOOQ be considered a kind of language for the "elite" in that respect? Those that want the extra power to write queries quickly with type safety etc instead of manually crafting the java/sql interface. That extra speed was one of the reasons I looked at JOOQ. I do like your idea, I guess I've made similar judgement calls in the past. I know some mainstream languages for the popularity power it gives me but for use cases where I think I can find a technical advantage I seek out new ideas/languages for that edge.

lukaseder 10y ago
Hmm, I haven't thought about it this way. But I don't think so. While jOOQ does enable a lot of "advanced" language features (like row level type safety across languages, and streaming of such tuples in Java 8 Streams), I still think that it mainly addresses the "masses" - at least those "masses" that profit from a slightly more sophisticated SQL integration than just boring CRUD. The examples exposed in the linked article certainly aren't every day examples for the masses. But I personally absolutely agree with you. There are technologies that do enable orders of magnitude in development efficiency. For instance, I'd love to work with Clojure and Datomic. I have a huge respect for Rich Hickey. But I don't think that everyone should, or ever will, use these technologies. In the end, when you have to do recruiting, from your local market, and you need 100 developers, choose Clojure and you'll be screwed.