The issue with defining schemas in a non-SQL programming language is they always lag behind what the underlying database can do. Sure, your ORM-like framework can define basics like primary keys and maybe uniqueness constraints, but can it define partitioning schemes, compression methods or more advanced constraints?
And then consider that other databases have even more. If you manage your schemas in code then you lose access to all of those, and will eventually need to write SQL anyway.
For queries it isn't such a problem, especially if you have a nice compiler. However, I recently lost faith in SQL wrappers/abstractions. The usual justification was that a lot of developers don't know SQL well, but LLMs are great at it. It's easier for the LLM to write SQL than some less familiar DSL. And SQL was written to be relatively easy to understand, especially if you do things like use CTEs and views correctly it should be possible to factor logic out to make even complex queries understandable.
The question for frameworks like Acadia is really: assuming I am fluent in SQL and know every feature of my database, what does the framework buy me? Because that's the perspective an LLM comes to it with.
I don't see anything special here. Haskell has had stuff like this for more than a decade, Selda is probably the one closest to Acadia: https://valderman.github.io/selda/
Despite their claims, this is not substantially different from ORM platforms in many languages.
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.
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
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.
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.
The Elm project forked into a bunch of different Elms because Evan basically abandoned / killed it. Then he got more interested with this project. What’s to say that won’t happen again?
I think it's fair to say there are other ways to interpret what happened with Elm. What if Evan stopped working on it because he needed to make a living and working on Elm wasn't going to achieve that? In that case, if working on Acadia will make him a a living, it seems reasonable to believe he will keep working on it.
> So even if “open core” is a strictly better model, we lack the intuition and experience to feel confident starting there. By thinking of Elm as the “open core” at first, we give ourselves time to learn and flexibility to expand the core later.
That is fair but I think that there’s not a clear thing from Evan we can point to which explains it contributes to the uncertainty in this new project. Makes me feel we should be wary of a repeat. If anything it seems what he learned from his experience with Elm is that the project should not have been open, and his main problem seemed to be community relations. Evan’s reputation precedes him so I’m sure Acadia will be a brilliant technical artifact, but I wouldn’t get burned twice trying to be a member of that community or contributing to it technically.
No, I don't know Evan and have never personally interacted with him. I'm wary of BDFLs because you can invest in a tool and then that time and energy is wasted if the wind changes.
Still might be viable, but would be tricky to sell.
> SUBSCRIPTION TERMS
> This license is subscription-based and will remain valid only for the duration of your active subscription. Upon expiration or termination of your subscription:
> a) Your rights to use the Software will cease; b) You must uninstall and stop using the Software; and c) You may lose access to any data or content created with or stored in the Software.
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".
Maybe so, but my father in law, who is a salesman and knows nothing about computers and programming still knows SQL.
SQL is a horrible language in the same way Excel is -- programmers hate it but the what makes it a horrible programming language to developers is what makes it accessible to non programmers.
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.
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.
> …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.
Syntax aside, programmers and mathematicians have a very different view on how things should be done.
Programmers look at data and see opportunities for running a pipeline of transformations (map/filter/...). And they tend to write their SQL like this as well. Or use something like Linq or one of the various pipe syntax SQL extensions.
I would say that this is a major reason why there is this sentiment of "SQL is yucky" by developers. The mental models just don't match.
Data storage and retrieval is a different domain than data processing. SQL is very good at the former, not so great for the latter.
SQL is closer to array programming than the usual imperative implementation of looping (and stream programming like the one in Java and Javascript). A better implementation is functional programming like haskell and clojure (lazy and composition of functions).
I think developers should be able to switch their mental model on the fly according to the current domain instead of getting stuck in the first paradigm they have learned.
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.
Yeah, from the post it might even be more limited than Django (python) ever was. For example it allows the user to define its own fields, which was used over a decade ago in libraries to extend Django and provide json support long before it was officially supported.
The issue with defining schemas in a non-SQL programming language is they always lag behind what the underlying database can do. Sure, your ORM-like framework can define basics like primary keys and maybe uniqueness constraints, but can it define partitioning schemes, compression methods or more advanced constraints?
Look at all the features supported here:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/sql-createtable.html
And then consider that other databases have even more. If you manage your schemas in code then you lose access to all of those, and will eventually need to write SQL anyway.
For queries it isn't such a problem, especially if you have a nice compiler. However, I recently lost faith in SQL wrappers/abstractions. The usual justification was that a lot of developers don't know SQL well, but LLMs are great at it. It's easier for the LLM to write SQL than some less familiar DSL. And SQL was written to be relatively easy to understand, especially if you do things like use CTEs and views correctly it should be possible to factor logic out to make even complex queries understandable.
The question for frameworks like Acadia is really: assuming I am fluent in SQL and know every feature of my database, what does the framework buy me? Because that's the perspective an LLM comes to it with.
I don't see anything special here. Haskell has had stuff like this for more than a decade, Selda is probably the one closest to Acadia: https://valderman.github.io/selda/
Despite their claims, this is not substantially different from ORM platforms in many languages.
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.
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
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.
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.
The Elm project forked into a bunch of different Elms because Evan basically abandoned / killed it. Then he got more interested with this project. What’s to say that won’t happen again?
I think it's fair to say there are other ways to interpret what happened with Elm. What if Evan stopped working on it because he needed to make a living and working on Elm wasn't going to achieve that? In that case, if working on Acadia will make him a a living, it seems reasonable to believe he will keep working on it.
> So even if “open core” is a strictly better model, we lack the intuition and experience to feel confident starting there. By thinking of Elm as the “open core” at first, we give ourselves time to learn and flexibility to expand the core later.
https://acadia.engineering/license/faq
The way I read this, Acadia is an attempt to finance working on both it and Elm.
That is fair but I think that there’s not a clear thing from Evan we can point to which explains it contributes to the uncertainty in this new project. Makes me feel we should be wary of a repeat. If anything it seems what he learned from his experience with Elm is that the project should not have been open, and his main problem seemed to be community relations. Evan’s reputation precedes him so I’m sure Acadia will be a brilliant technical artifact, but I wouldn’t get burned twice trying to be a member of that community or contributing to it technically.
Do you nurse a personal grudge?
No, I don't know Evan and have never personally interacted with him. I'm wary of BDFLs because you can invest in a tool and then that time and energy is wasted if the wind changes.
Oh man. If this lobste.rs comment is correct about the subscription terms then this feels like a really hard pill to swallow: https://lobste.rs/s/ykq7ym/rethinking_database_programming#c...
Still might be viable, but would be tricky to sell.
> SUBSCRIPTION TERMS
> This license is subscription-based and will remain valid only for the duration of your active subscription. Upon expiration or termination of your subscription:
> a) Your rights to use the Software will cease; b) You must uninstall and stop using the Software; and c) You may lose access to any data or content created with or stored in the Software.
So this is capable of turning a one-liner of SQL into six lines of barely readable code?
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.
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.
SQL is a horrible language. I’d gladly program in something composable like Elm.
Unfortunately Evan removed GROUP BY in 0.19 and left to buy cigarettes.
It'd definitely need a solid team behind this and not just Evan Czaplicki if I were to trust a database with my data.
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".
Or “the worst query language ever, except for all the alternatives”
Maybe so, but my father in law, who is a salesman and knows nothing about computers and programming still knows SQL.
SQL is a horrible language in the same way Excel is -- programmers hate it but the what makes it a horrible programming language to developers is what makes it accessible to non programmers.
New functional query language for PostgreSQL and SQLite by Evan Czaplicki the author of Elm
Needs proper docs
stuff like "The endpoint keyword" just gets a mention on the front page/readme with no further detail
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.
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.
> …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.
Syntax aside, programmers and mathematicians have a very different view on how things should be done.
Programmers look at data and see opportunities for running a pipeline of transformations (map/filter/...). And they tend to write their SQL like this as well. Or use something like Linq or one of the various pipe syntax SQL extensions.
I would say that this is a major reason why there is this sentiment of "SQL is yucky" by developers. The mental models just don't match.
Data storage and retrieval is a different domain than data processing. SQL is very good at the former, not so great for the latter.
SQL is closer to array programming than the usual imperative implementation of looping (and stream programming like the one in Java and Javascript). A better implementation is functional programming like haskell and clojure (lazy and composition of functions).
I think developers should be able to switch their mental model on the fly according to the current domain instead of getting stuck in the first paradigm they have learned.
This isn’t talking about correctness of SQL. It’s talking about correctness of queries.
I was hoping for an alternative to PLSQL or stored procedures. But this isn’t about „Database Programming“, it’s a SQL replacement…
It isn't that bad, at least for those of us that like Ada, and feel at home on SQL Developer.
Or just let the language be the database like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUMPS ;)
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.
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
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.
From what I seen (not an expert). It’s mostly sql with a c# flavor and auto translation to native type.
Is it an ORM?
From the homepage https://acadia.engineering/:
| Not an Object-Relational Mapping (ORM).
I dont see how this isn't just an ORM (like Entity Framework in dot net land).
Yeah, from the post it might even be more limited than Django (python) ever was. For example it allows the user to define its own fields, which was used over a decade ago in libraries to extend Django and provide json support long before it was officially supported.
it might semantically not be an ORM because of something at an engineering level, but it's 100% ORM like from a user point of view, so it's an ORM.
Pretty nice, thanks
Exciting news!! Love Elm, can't wait to use it more
It looks like the HN hug of death has found a new victim
https://archive.is/fpGFV
Sorry Evan, somebody already rethought the DB https://rethinkdb.com/