this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
78 points (86.1% liked)

Programming

17374 readers
253 users here now

Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!

Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.

Hope you enjoy the instance!

Rules

Rules

  • Follow the programming.dev instance rules
  • Keep content related to programming in some way
  • If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos

Wormhole

Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev



founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BlackXanthus@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't know if there is, but it feels like the email protocol problem.

Like, while the protocol sucks in many, many ways, it would take something revolutionary to replace it because it's everywhere.

It's been around so long that everything talks the protocol, the binaries that handle it are mature and stable.

Then you have to ask: what would you replace it with? It does the job it's designed to do very well. There's nothing the matter with the protocol, and it's still fit-for-purpose.

That doesn't mean there aren't problems - spam, bad actors, and so on, but ultimately that's not the fault of the protocol (though, maybe, for email, people have been arguing about protocol-level ways of dealing with spam for years).

I don't have an answer, but I feel like there should be one, but I doubt the is.

[–] cerement@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

(have heard a similar argument about Python – there’s no killer app and it’s not the best, but it’s good enough and just keeps going)

[–] recursive_recursion@programming.dev -5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Then you have to ask: what would you replace it with? It does the job it's designed to do very well. There's nothing the matter with the protocol, and it's still fit-for-purpose.

Rust once it's matured is my guess

Edit: this short comment wasn't thought out so the downvotes are reasonable, gonna leave this up so I can improve

[–] lnsfw3@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We're replacing protocols with Rust now?

[–] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago

I imagine they were trying to reply to CEREMENT about Python.