they're actually providing a service. It is easy to consume pirated content, but have it curated, listed and streamed directly to your tv adds value, so people are willing to pay for it.
I don't even have to open the article to know that this is a Brazillian police operation. Our country has long tradition of silly naming police operations.
Perhaps they weren't all that optimistic they would find anyone ;)
Bonus points of course when those who know more than one http status were pessimistic, while all unable to get that nuance were optimistic, and would not have knowingly accepted a pessimistic operation name.
The only thing I like in SQL is that is almost the same language in decades. Learn it once and you're done. If you really need, you could write macros yourself. I don't see the value of learning a new language to do the same thing
Given how many new programming languages have become widely used in the time since SQL's creation, it seems many others do se some value. For a mostly direct parallel to PQL, see CoffeeScript and TypeScript.
Do you mean that NULL <> NULL and NULL infects boolean logic?
NULL is always an awkward thing to deal with - how you want to handle it depends on the specific thing you're trying to accomplish. I'd probably prefer it if NULL equaled NULL when dealing with where conditions but it actually makes join evaluations a lot cleaner - if NULL equaled NULL then joining on columns with nulls would get really weird.
At the end of the day IS NULL and IS DISTINCT FROM/IS NOT DISTINCT FROM exist so you can handle cases where it'd be weird.
I think that's just a question on syntactic sugaring here - so, concretely, what would that mean for comparison operators? If I wanted to `id = id` and both were nullable would I need to express that as two layers of statements where I tried to unwrap both sides first or would we have a maybe vs maybe comparison operator - if we had such an operator what would it do in this case?
You’d have to unwrap, usually with convenient mechanism for it —pattern matching
The problem is that id = id is fundamentally incorrect for a nullable column. You should have done id is not null and id = id. And you shouldn’t have been allowed to do the first anyways, because nothing good can come of it (there is no sane semantics to stuffing a trinary logic into a boolean algebra, and SQL chooses one of the many insane options, leading to both false positive and false negative matches depending.) the only correct answer is not to do that.
I can understand how that would make things more explicit - but given how common nullability is in the realm of databases I think it'd be a bad idea to force that much syntax in a situation where id=id is essentially what we want to discuss - especially since columns becoming potentially null is so trivial to achieve (even when impossible due to model constraints) as soon as you start throwing left joins in the mix.
Sometimes you really want explicit, rather than dealing with the errors caused by implicitness. And with a language that has proper support for things like Maybe, there isn't that much syntax.
It's true that you have to adopt a completely different language, but when that language saves you from potentially expensive bugs, it becomes appealing.
I think it handles all the 3VL problems I've encountered in SQL, but that doesn't mean it handles all possible 3VL problems. It also might not make any sense to anyone except me.
It's been a while since relational algebra so I don't feel confident saying "Yes" or "No" (I guess you could say my reply is Null) - but that seems like a really good base approach - especially having a state for being uncertain whether something is nullable or not... having an operator embeded fallback approach also seems to be a lot more usable for the developer.
Also, this is an aside, but is your thing named after Snake Plissken?
Yeah, kind of. I have seen Escape From New York but I don't really remember it. I was more aware of the character via the reference/homage in Metal Gear Solid 2. In any case, I don't love the name but the obvious choice (Racquel) was already taken and "Plisqin" had zero Google results so I said "meh, good enough."
I strongly disagree that SQL is broken. Try using JPA or your favorite ORM on a large project with a complex entity graph. It is a nightmare having to ctrl-click deep into the entity graph to see what annotations are on some great-grandchildren to get an idea as to what query is being executed. When working with relational data SQL has always been the ideal tool for the job on the projects I've worked on.
I think a lot of times people say “ORM” when they mean “Hibernate” or some other ORM implementation.
In your codebase, do you stick raw SQL all over the place and iterate over rows exclusively? Or instead, as a convenience, do you write helpers that map objects into SQL statements and map result rows into objects? If so, congratulations, you’re using an ORM. The concept of ORMs is not bad. It’s a logical thing to do. Some ORM _implementations_ have some very serious issues, but that does not make ORMs as a whole bad.
I'm not sure I'd consider query-builders to be ORMs. You do inevitably have a mapping from query resultset to list<obj>, so it does meet the name itself, but there's clearly a very large difference between "Hibernate" and query-builder, and if you don't want to use ORM to be the differentiating term calling out Hibernate and friends specifically, then let me know what you do wish to use. But as far as I know, colloquially and commonly, ORM refers to the former -- not the general act of having any mapping at all.
I like using A3 (folded as 2 a4 sheets) foolscap paper, plain white not ruled. They're usually light (56gr/m2) so they're pretty transparent, making convinient to use graph paper under them as line guides. To assemble them I use a manilla folder for 3 staples (couldn't find the exact name but its like [0]) and 3 binders;
In the end they're like this: https://twitter.com/gtroja_/status/1489717293508665349
I feel adhd is only a diagnosis beacause society demands to much attention/focus; I've once told my therapist if flying was required to be part of the society my diagnosis would be unwinged
Yeah, it's a nifty little tool. On the other hand when a really interesting post on pure bash exposition comes up the comments section turns to talking about plain bash scripts they've made or know of instead. There are several normal scripts replied in this post and a few others via links, more than actual conversation around what the post is actually about (so far). That's all I was commenting on, not the value of the tool. It's a hill :).
