3 ms·
As I see it, we haven't really made any progress in terms of impedance mismatch. Otherwise, jooq is a fine addition to the Java world, as it generates a type-s
by maweki 2y ago
As I see it, we haven't really made any progress in terms of impedance mismatch.
Otherwise, jooq is a fine addition to the Java world, as it generates a type-safe DSL from your ddl file where every statically correct jooq/Java statement is also a statically correct SQL query.
- dventimihasura 2y agoI see it differently. In the 25 years I've been working in this industry I see a welcome trend toward doing more in the database, such that the impedance mismatch dissipates. This is from a low-water mark 20 years ago or so, when most Java developers I knew kept the database at arm's length, insisting it met them on their terms rather than the other way around. https://gist.github.com/cpursley/c8fb81fe8a7e5df038158bdfe0f06dbb https://gist.github.com/cpursley/c8fb81fe8a7e5df038158bdfe0f... https://supabase.com/ https://supabase.com/ One way to eliminate the Java-SQL impedance (for example) mismatch is to delete Java altogether, along with JOOQ, Hibernate, and Spring (for example).
- rqtwteye 2y agoI think more code in the database could work but then the database should have better programming languages. The current SQL dialects are terrible for writing regular code.
- dventimihasura 2y agoThat's a matter of taste. I find most of the business logic I need to express involves finding and transforming relational data, a task to which SQL is better suited than any general purpose programming language. Often, SQL is all that's needed. Less often, I have to resort to PLpgSQL, PL/SQL, or T-SQL. When that happens, it's not that bad.