|
|
|
|
|
by BatteryMountain
1607 days ago
|
|
And the core issue is, sql is just strings. It only fails at runtime and not a compile time. There is no compile-time strong/static typing, you only find out its broken when you run it. So it makes it really difficult to re-use.
The other problem is, you have to specify table and column names in queries (duh, how else), but that means the entire persistence model is hard coded and need manual tweaking and so on. In an ideal universe, each field would be generic, each object generic and each collection of objects generic and all functions being generic. You'd end up with one huge flat structure of fields that are linked to each other to form more complex objects. But that not efficient in current computers nor do we have enough memory to store all information like that. And you might end up back at square one where everything is just strings. |
|
Yeah, define the database in a database. And then define the database for the definition of the database in a database.
If you'd like to deliver a product that does something, you've got to stop adding abstraction layers at some point.