3 ms·
I think that's always a risk (the old "which idiot wrote this? clearly needs a full rewrite!" followed by the rewriter rediscovering all the bugs the original h
by remus 4y ago
I think that's always a risk (the old "which idiot wrote this? clearly needs a full rewrite!" followed by the rewriter rediscovering all the bugs the original had fixed), but with a well established language like SQL hopefully the risk is lower.
- btilly 4y agoThe fact is that, word for word, SQL is incredibly more efficient for reporting than most programming languages. But since few programmers treat it as a real language, it tends to be written without formatting. Which makes it hard to read. Also unfamiliarity will make SQL feel inefficient for non-SQL programmers. The experience of rewriting SQL teaches some this lesson. But others find that the familiarity of the language of the rewrite makes it seem better to them, even though it is objectively worse. An objectively worse that only becomes visible when someone needs to optimize it for performance reasons. And it is seldom the programmer who did the inefficient write who has the skills to optimize it back to what SQL did in the first place! (Yeah, I've had to do those optimization fixes.)
- xupybd 4y agoMany developers, good developers haven't worked with complex SQL queries. So on seeing one they can sometimes think it's quicker to redo this in a language I know rather than upskill enough to understand this.
- rvanlaar 4y agoWhile I agree with the sentiment, in practice I haven't seen it go over well. I find the tooling around SQL to be severely lacking.