Rethinking Database Programming
80 points by honungsburk 5 hours ago | 28 comments

gbjcantab 23 minutes ago
This looks reasonably interesting, and Evan is extremely thoughtful about design; I know he’s put a huge amount of work into this.

Personally, I’d be very cautious about adopting closed-source software with such a restrictive license as part of an application, especially given the context of Elm’s trajectory. When Elm went through breaking changes or regressions, or was not worked on publicly for years, users had access to the source and the right to modify it. With Acadia’s licensing, you’d be stranded.

reply
happyraul 13 minutes ago
On the other hand, with Elm there was no correlation between adoption and funding for development. With Acadia, he's trying a different funding model, so that might mean better support for both Acadia and Elm.
reply
dwohnitmok 38 minutes ago
I'm wary of languages that seek to own the database. In particular, the claim "Coexist with SQL" seems a bit suspect given that e.g. sum types have a custom binary encoding, which likely makes them difficult to interop with from other languages. This makes the claimed interop with other languages really more of a temporary stopping point towards full Acadia adoption rather than a viable long-term equilibrium, unless you e.g. eschew using sum types. (I also suspect that trying to natively support sum types can lead to a kind of FP-equivalent of ORMs' impedance mismatch. The ways I model data with relational logic can be pretty different than the ways I model data with algebraic datatypes and I wonder if trying to force fit the latter into the former doesn't lead to the same problems as force fitting objects into relational logic).

This makes the database closer to something that Acadia compiles to, rather than something Acadia sits on top of. From my own developer experience this feels off, because I generally expect the data layer to be king and application code to revolve around that, rather than having data representation created in code and the database created off that (this is why I also dislike things like ORMs).

In general I view databases as usually having more longevity than application code, especially as you accumulate more data over time. For serious production applications, the database often outlives multiple rewrites of the production application.

I suspect though my concerns are overall rather minor. The ergonomics of the language itself seem enjoyable. Acadia seems like it would be great as an embedded DSL. It's a bit unfortunate that it currently seems coupled to creating an HTTP server. I think that Acadia has greater ambitions beyond just the database, as evidenced by creating a binary web connection with frontend Elm code to presumably obviate the need for encode-decode layers. It seems like Acadia is meant to be a stepping stone towards a closer frontend-backend fusion. But I agree with mjaniczek that something like Lamdera seems a better fit for that.

But given how early Acadia is, I'm still very excited for where it goes. What I've listed is surmountable and I also feel that often a closer frontend-backend fusion might be worthwhile.

reply
exidex 11 minutes ago
I think, the reality is SQL being simply to old to coexist with a web app use case. All the nice things that article talks about are not possible to nicely integrate with SQL. Current development is done by either writing SQL by hand or by letting ORMs to autogenerate it. Both feel bad because of how bad SQL is. But there is no other option. I hope https://substrait.io/ will gain traction and will be supported natively by databases
reply
SkiFire13 20 minutes ago
I agree with the premises, but the result proposed here doesn't look like anything I would like to use unfortunately. Even just looking at a glance you cannot see what it's doing and what each part means.
reply
lucasban 9 minutes ago
Or just let the language be the database like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS ;)
reply
pelagicAustral 2 hours ago
So this is capable of turning a one-liner of SQL into six lines of barely readable code?
reply
fwlr 46 minutes ago
It seems that is the price you pay for the power to turn a 600-line nightmare SQL query into 60 lines of barely readable code.
reply
bazoom42 28 minutes ago
I would like to see that example then.

I’m all for improving on SQL, but this syntax does not even solve the dangling comma issue as far as I can tell from the example.

reply
janderland 43 minutes ago
SQL is a horrible language. I’d gladly program in something composable like Elm.
reply
ch4s3 32 minutes ago
Unfortunately Evan removed GROUP BY in 0.19 and left to buy cigarettes.
reply
quikoa 22 minutes ago
It'd definitely need a solid team behind this and not just Evan Czaplicki if I were to trust a database with my data.
reply
tclancy 21 minutes ago
As a programming language? Sure. As a way to work with relational data? It may be my favorite "language" across all domains because of the terse beauty. I am a self-taught, no CS coder but SQL is the one place where I feel like I get all the math I should know.

An opinionated, possibly hot take would be to call SQL "A more elegant weapon of a civilized age".

reply
bazoom42 16 minutes ago
Or “the worst query language ever, except for all the alternatives”
reply
honungsburk 5 hours ago
New functional query language for PostgreSQL and SQLite by Evan Czaplicki the author of Elm
reply
raumgeist 2 hours ago
Looks very nice. Last year I took up rust, coming from c++, and some of the modern features rust brings are just so nice to have (even something as simple as not having to forward declare a class).

This year I started working with postgres and you just can't help but notice how sql is coming from the c-Era of programming. Having better and more modern ways to express my queries would be great to improve correctness and performance.

reply
schaefer 15 minutes ago
> …can't help but notice how sql is coming from the c-Era of programming. Having … more modern ways to express my queries would be great to improve correctness …

SQL is based in pure mathematics: set theory, relational algebra.

The process of applying mathematical rigor to your database design to prove correctness is referred to as normalization.

I don’t mind criticisms like “It’s old, yuck”, but criticisms like “it’s not correct” mean you haven’t studied or applied the mathematical underpinnings of sql.

reply
DarkNova6 2 hours ago
I was hoping for an alternative to PLSQL or stored procedures. But this isn’t about „Database Programming“, it’s a SQL replacement…
reply
pjmlp 12 minutes ago
It isn't that bad, at least for those of us that like Ada, and feel at home on SQL Developer.
reply
mjaniczek 2 hours ago
Having reusable functions and pipelines compiling to SQL sounds amazing. (EDIT: and sum types!) Will want to try this out on some side project later.

Although for my Elm + backend needs I feel like I still prefer Lamdera: https://dashboard.lamdera.app/ - WebSocket communication and being able to push new data to clients immediately instead of juggling HTTP endpoints and the client having to pull/refresh. `sendToBackend`, `sendToFrontend`, `broadcast` are a great primitive.

reply
nylonstrung 2 hours ago
For columnar databases, I love Vortex' Dtypes which lets you attach semantic context in a logical type to what is essentially compressed Arrow https://docs.vortex.dev/concepts/dtypes#logical-types
reply
NoDodgeQuestion 10 minutes ago
Is it an ORM?
reply
happyraul 8 minutes ago
From the homepage https://acadia.engineering/:

| Not an Object-Relational Mapping (ORM).

reply
akoboldfrying 32 minutes ago
Is this at all similar to LINQ in C#? I never used it, but I'm vaguely aware of it being a functional approach to querying an RDBMS.
reply
ArtemKhymenko 3 hours ago
Pretty nice, thanks
reply
somelady 3 hours ago
Exciting news!! Love Elm, can't wait to use it more
reply
DarkNova6 2 hours ago
It looks like the HN hug of death has found a new victim
reply