If you’re modeling relational data, it doesn’t seem like you can get around using a DB that uses SQL, which to me is the worst: most programmers aren’t DB experts and the SQL they output is quite often terrible.

Not to dunk on the lemmy devs, they do a good job, but they themselves know that their SQL is bad. Luckily there are community members who stepped up and are doing a great job at fixing the numerous performance issues and tuning the DB settings, but not everybody has that kind of support, nor time.

Also, the translation step from binary (program) -> text (SQL) -> binary (server), just feels quite wrong. For HTML and CSS, it’s fine, but for SQL, where injection is still in the top 10 security risks, is there something better?

Yes, there are ORMs, but some languages don’t have them (rust has diesel for example, which still requires you to write SQL) and it would be great to “just” have a DB with a binary protocol that makes it unnecessary to write an ORM.

Does such a thing exist? Is there something better than SQL out there?

  • sip@programming.dev
    54·
    1 year ago

    relational databases have years of reseach into them, not the query language itself.

    sql was built so people other than devs can use it, but we got stuck with it.

    • lysdexic@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      sql was built so people other than devs can use it, but we got stuck with it.

      Not really. Being designed with UX in mind, so that it sacrifices conciseness for readability, does not make it something for “people other than devs”.

      Likewise, BASIC was also developed with UX in mind, and no one in their right mind would ever claim that it’s not a programming language.

        • lysdexic@programming.devEnglish
          0·
          1 year ago

          each system has it’s own dialect and quirks

          That does not mean that SQL, as specified by one of it’s standard versions, is not portable. It just means that some implementations fail to comply with the standard and/or provide their own extensions.

          If an implementation fails to comply with the standard, that’s a failure on the side of the implementation, not a failure of SQL.