Yo - my message probably seems like a downer then, and I apologize for that. I’ve just seen so many ORMs and query builders and other things come and go. And it frustrates me when people want to learn the new hotness rather than learning how to do the thing. Especially when the thing in this case is SQL, the most widely used language for database interaction.
The way I perceive PRQL is somewhat like SQLAlchemy-Core (the SQL expression layer, not the ORM). Almost a 1:1 mapping to SQL but softening the rough edges in SQL when constructing more complex queries dynamically, in particular: no function calls, no real variables, only string concatenation. While SQLAlchemy-Core lets you even extract sub-queries into variables, I don’t know about how powerful PRQL is in this regard.
From what I see from the docs I’m rather hopeful though.
As a developer of the compiler from prql to sql, I can say that I’m working on a new language because I know SQL quite in-depth.
It seems ok on surface, but there are many inconsistenties that you either learn to live with or don’t even know are there until they trip you.
Yo - my message probably seems like a downer then, and I apologize for that. I’ve just seen so many ORMs and query builders and other things come and go. And it frustrates me when people want to learn the new hotness rather than learning how to do the thing. Especially when the thing in this case is SQL, the most widely used language for database interaction.
The way I perceive PRQL is somewhat like SQLAlchemy-Core (the SQL expression layer, not the ORM). Almost a 1:1 mapping to SQL but softening the rough edges in SQL when constructing more complex queries dynamically, in particular: no function calls, no real variables, only string concatenation. While SQLAlchemy-Core lets you even extract sub-queries into variables, I don’t know about how powerful PRQL is in this regard.
From what I see from the docs I’m rather hopeful though.