|
|
Time and again, I run into developers who'''s feeling towards SQL ranges from slight discomfort to shear terror
SQL injection - the most terrifying injection of my adult life 
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, it wouldn't be a problem if the author had used the correct word! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Why are developers so afraid of SQL?
I am afraid of it because it's a three letter acronym and I have a fear of all TLAs. 
You can lead a developer to CodeProject, but you can't make them think.
The Theory of Gravity was invented for the sole purpose of distracting you from investigating the scientific fact that the Earth sucks.
|
|
|
|
|
Never knew developers are afraid of SQL - sounds me all wrong. In my schedule at college SQL was there every week...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
To me the author of this text simply doesn't understand why people don't like SQL.
He even talks about ORMs, but he missed the point entirely. Many developers don't have a problem with SQL. They don't have a problem with the programming language either. Their problem is the mismatch between SQL and the language they need to use and the amount of duplicated code.
Without an ORM, the developer is going to write the SQL, then either use a DataTable (pretty bad) or a DataReader. If the developer uses a data-reader to populate an object (I worked in many places that do this), the developer needs to write the sql + write the code that reads every database field to populate an object. Also, any error when writing the field names will only be found while executing the code. In this sense, it is natural to avoid writing one of them if you can.
And honestly, joins are stupid too. Most joins are based on foreign key fields, and there's only one possible join from one table to the other, yet developers must repeat all the fields in the "ON" clause. It would be much nicer if SQL allowed us to say "INNER JOIN otherTable" without having to specify the joining fields all the time, reserving it for exceptional cases.
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo Zemek wrote: Without an ORM, the developer is going to write the SQL,
...
Paulo Zemek wrote: yet developers must repeat all the fields in the "ON" clause. It would be much nicer if SQL allowed us to say "INNER JOIN otherTable"
...
Ugh. Anyone that is still writing SQL directly in their code should be shot. I'm definitely not an advocate of ORM's, but it doesn't take very much effort to put together a decent enough SQL generator that covers 90% or more of the use cases, based simply on the schema. Oh wait, I forgot. A lot of the databases I've seen don't actually have usable schemas defining FK relationships, unique keys, even primary keys that are non-data fields.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
We use a lot of SQL - of course, but there is no a single line of it in the code. When I want some data I load an entity (not of .NET but using a 2 decade old idea of our own) identifying it by it's name and passing it some parameters. The entity itself was created by a home-made ORM like tool and saved in the database itself...No SQL whatsoever in code!
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Being afraid of SQL is a strange exaggeration in my opinion. The only wierd SQL stuff is all the inner and outer etc. joins. They are hard to understand. I feel better working with smaller blocks of code one selection at a time and the narrowing in of the data set. Linq helps us doing that. And after all developers loves Linq mostly.
Michael Pauli
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: A lot of the databases I've seen don't actually have usable schemas
There. You said all that needs to be said. 
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
I do like SQL - There is always very less to do with SQL. The worse part is dealing with ORM and the data access layer.
In SQL on the thing I am scared of is Joins.
|
|
|
|
|
Fear of SQL is a sign of weakness.
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds almost like a Dune koan
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: JOINing
Especially the INNER JOINing - I hate all that clique stuff.
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Xtend started out in 2011 with a controversial claim to fame: the programming language promised its users “Java 10, today”. For those who prefer their Java deOracleated
It's less likely to keep you up at night
|
|
|
|
|
Mobile development is on the rise, but for developers, it’s still got a long way to go. Mobile's just a fad: who wants to carry all the world's knowledge and capabilities with them all the time?
|
|
|
|
|
640K should be enough for anyone!
- I would love to change the world, but they won’t give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
Intel will show wearables, robots, and smart electronics and also talk about chips for mobile device, PCs, and servers at its developer forum. Well, not *just* an antiquated tech company
|
|
|
|
|
If they want to compete they will need to bring prices down and provide the tools to program them cheap or free to entice developers to come on board. What good is an SD sized SoC if no one uses it?
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Today I’d like to share some information about work we are doing to make hardware accelerated 2D graphics APIs available to C# developers. For ADVENTURES in the second dimension
That really needs dramatic music in the background to help it pop.
|
|
|
|
|
NYTimes wrote: Andrew Kay, Pioneer in Computing, Dies at 95[^]
"The Kaypro computer was a necessary step in getting to the iPad," Paul Freiberger, co-author of "Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer," said in an interview on Friday. "Back then few thought of making a computer you could carry around. It was loved because he got almost everything right."
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Both machines were described as “luggables” and were the size of portable sewing machines. But the Kaypro’s case was rugged metal, in contrast to the Osborne’s plastic shell, and it had a nine-inch cathode ray tube display. It weighed 29 pounds and, like the Osborne I, sold for $1,795.
My boss insisted I take one of these on a business trip to Mexico in mid-80s, all I could think of was where can I ditch this thing and would I have to pay for it if it came up missing. It was an amazing machine but it was so heavy.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Mike Hankey wrote: It weighed 29 pounds
...
Mike Hankey wrote: it was so heavy.
Only a geek would think 29 lbs is heavy. 
|
|
|
|
|
Try lugging it through 2 air ports, having the stewardess stow it, etc.. It was just a PITA. It wouldn't have been so bad but I never used it and knew that I wouldn't use it.
New version: WinHeist Version 2.1.0 Beta
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
I'm not crazy, my reality is just different than yours!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
