this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2023

542 points (96.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

19572 readers

1918 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

Keep content in english
No advertisements
Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Feyter@programming.dev

anzo@programming.dev

BurningTurtle@programming.dev

pylapp@programming.dev

542

no.. just no (lemmy.ca)

submitted 10 months ago by reimufumo@lemmy.ca to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

I'd like you to think for a moment about CTEs, the HAVING clause, window functions and every other funky and useful thing you can do in SQL ... Now just think, do you think that this syntax supports all those correctly?

[–] Primarily0617@kbin.social 33 points 10 months ago

sql syntax doesn't support even itself correctly i fail to see your point

[–] cmdrkeen@programming.dev 16 points 10 months ago

Probably no better or worse than any other ORM written in a more traditional language. Worst comes to worst, you can always escape to plain SQL.