|
... and you'll spend the next week or so trying to catch up with emails ... 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
that's monday, when I start working again... 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Happy New Year
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
Happy New Year to you, as well, Nelek!
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
From CP newsletter
https://www.infoq.com/news/2024/01/mysql-javascript-procedures/[^]
MySQL (Oracle) is going to add JavaScript. So instead of using SQL.
The article has this bit of sage advice...
"enables developers to implement advanced data processing logic within the database. By minimizing data movement between the database server and client applications, stored functions and procedures can reduce latencies, network overhead, and egress costs"
That seems familiar ... hmmm ... Oh! I know! Same thing SQL already does.
Except that SQL is actually optimized to use the database.
This is no different really than moving a JavaScript server into the MySQL application space.
Oh sigh it gets even better. One suggestion...
"data formatting,"
Because of course that is the best place to format the data to be human readable.
But there is some relief - yeah!
"there is no support in the MySQL Community Edition."
The article does seem to suggest that the procs might be directly replaceable with the equivalent SQL. At least if they have enough sense initially to not make the database do what some other application should be doing instead.
Makes me wonder how many places that pay for Oracle the licensing fees are going to have employees that using JavaScript is going to be a good idea? I doubt DBAs are going to jump on this.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: reduce latencies, network overhead, and egress costs
Definitely a worthwhile goal.
jschell wrote: Same thing SQL already does.
SQL Server? I use a lot of CLR (C#) functions in SQL Server for various parsing and formatting purposes which are not built-in.
|
|
|
|
|
It could be worse. It could be Python.
"A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants"
Chuckles the clown
|
|
|
|
|
Aside from other's responses I'll add that given what I found out about JS limitations trying to do hashing and value equality semantics it's surprising that they'd choose JS of all languages to augment DB ops.
I don't agree with any of it. Render unto SQL that which is SQL is my view.
But say I did - JS wouldn't be the first language I'd choose to implement.
Which brings me back to the crux of my comment the other day about JS, and how it's being used in many more places than it's ready for.
Check out my IoT graphics library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx
And my IoT UI/User Experience library here:
https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Render unto SQL that which is SQL
For certain. No one language is the best at everything, but SQL is the best at what it does.
|
|
|
|
|
Now watch your SQL server implode because someone's starting to drag in dozens hundreds thousands of dependency libraries to perform some trivial task...
|
|
|
|
|
lol
Didn't even consider that.
Other post mentions C# used in SQL Server (which I had forgotten) which has a similar problem.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Didn't even consider that.
You know that's exactly how JavaScript "developers" will abuse it.
If they have to make SQL usable with JS, it's because those JS developers lack, shall we say, the sophistication to use the tools that already exist and are better suited for the job. And if they don't have that sophistication, you know they ARE going to perpetuate the same mistakes they're already making.
|
|
|
|
|
It's up there with "code behind" and "breaking" the MVVM model. Or using C# "custom code" in LINQ .Where() clauses. (Which I do all the time ... and love).
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
begin
life(achievements);
end.
![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
Mircea
|
|
|
|
|
His language provided for my family for over 10 years.
I still say := is the superior assignment notation.
Thank you Sir and
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
MarkTJohnson wrote: := is the superior assignment notation.
You are correct.
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed.
As a trainer for a few years in C and C++, I always stressed that when scanning/reading/writing code you should train yourself to read/think the operator and not the character(s).
int a = 5;
a = 5;
a == 5;
a += 5;
etc
Having a separate token for assignment operator is much cleaner.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: you should train yourself to read/think the operator and not the character(s)
Funny analogy:
I spent a year as a US high school senior. In Norwegian high school, the physics teacher had stressed that in formulas and equations, we use letter symbols that are not from name of the phenomenon, e.g. 'v' for 'fart' (speed) and 'c' for 'ladning' (charge). Advanced physics requires so much math an so many equations that we must learn to solve as pure math equations with arbitrarily named variables. Being concerned about the physical interpretation while doing the math is disturbing, you do the math better by not worrying about what a squared speed is!
This was firmly established in my brain when I came to the US and a physics teacher who strongly stressed that the symbols are mnemonics, to keep you aware of the physical interpretation. You must always use the mnemonic symbols: Kinetic energy E = 1/2 mv^2, half the mass times the velocity squared. A = 1/2 tf^2 is not the kinetic energy, but something completely different! For a few phenomena, I was used to other letters than the ones used in the US physics textbook - I think they might have been mnemonics for Latin words, not English ones. If I happened to use those Latin symbols in my hand-ins, they were corrected by the teacher to the proper English ones.
So there are different schools. My preference is like yours: Don't worry about the textual representation, the equation is the same with other letters. The operation/operator is the same whatever it is called, how it is written.
At least in an ideal world. There is a problem with symbols that have a well established interpretation that everyone knows, but you insist on using it with a different interpretation. That is the problem with '=': For centuries, the meaning of 'if privilege level = boss, allow entrance' is an interrogation of the privilege level. Then comes C programmers and insist on a different interpretation: The privilege level is set to 'boss', and if the internal representation of 'boss' is zero, entrance is allowed, regardless of who you are. This redefinition of well established interpretation I do not appreciate.
Nor do I appreciate having to ask 'if privilege level is is boss, allow entrance'. Why should I have to double the test? There is a well established convention for interrogating the privilege level without repeating the condition!
In other words: I prefer Pascal's ':=' (or APL's '←' - I have also seen languages using <- ) rather than breaking down well established conventions.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
The proprietary language in which I worked for much of my career used ->, which was dubbed "gazinta" (goes into). This allowed constructs such as
if(function(arguments) -> result = ...) with = being the C++ equivalent of ==.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: "gazinta" (goes into)
But that's division. e.g. three gazinta twelve four times.
|
|
|
|
|
I still enjoy his books.
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Worked about 10 year with Modula 2.
Have read a lot of his parser stuff and compiler compiler.
|
|
|
|
|
I did my final college project using Pascal - very rebellious for that time of COBOL...
Simply fascinated me the language
"If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker that came along would destroy civilization." ― Gerald Weinberg
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
