This is an essay version of xkcd 'standards'. It's not wrong, but it's not the entire picture. The author is correct, sql does everything they need, cause it's

This is an essay version of xkcd 'standards'. It's not wrong, but it's not the entire picture. The author is correct, sql does everything they need, cause it's so expressive. (Mysql8 is turing complete with it's domain specific syntax duh-duh-daah...) But that power comes at the cost of scrutiny and composition. ORMS are fish in a barrel--they fail because they are the wrong abstraction. Queries shouldn't be the language, they should be the verbs in the language. With a very restricted query AST, introspection and composition are possible. If queries point to the same table, you can combine them into a new query whose result cells are union or intersection of the input result cells. You can automate joins and subquery indexing. You can recover from a dropped column by replacing references to it with null, and limp by with partial results instead of no results. I agree with the author's hate on DSLs as a substitute for sql... when they have the same level of abstraction. But if you want queries to be lego bricks that snap together, the bricks can't have NP hard surface area. DSLs fill that need.