It didn't sound like he was anti-SQL in this case, just irked about ORMs being treated as business objects. The most obvious anti-pattern being a thin Spring service that just loads and executes .sql files.
No domain logic, no collaborating objects, just Java and Spring for the sake of shuttling stuff to and from the database.
That has its place, though, if you just want to ship data to a vendor for their processing. The service is a boundary to avoid granting rights or network access to the database itself.
From a maintenance perspective, if most services are Java+Spring from a template, might as well on this one too.
Maybe Uncle Bob is unhappy folks don't design anymore? Like CRC cards and hashing out expert patterns from users.
Title is misleading. Bob doesn't say anything anti-SQL in this rant. But he's advocating for a clear separation between "business objects" and "data gunk" as he calls it. It's clear he see the business objects as more important (I respectfully disagree) but he's not anti-SQL.
Uncle Bob ignores that databases include static stored procedures. He is misleading that data structures are not objects, when in fact data structures are a kind of object.
This is a kernel of s great point wrapped in confusing-at-best vocabulary.
I agree. I've met Bob in person and he's a very nice guy and obviously very passionate about his field. But these rants feel like he's talking down to the audience, as though explaining something for the 17th time to someone who doesn't get it.
No domain logic, no collaborating objects, just Java and Spring for the sake of shuttling stuff to and from the database.
That has its place, though, if you just want to ship data to a vendor for their processing. The service is a boundary to avoid granting rights or network access to the database itself.
From a maintenance perspective, if most services are Java+Spring from a template, might as well on this one too.
Maybe Uncle Bob is unhappy folks don't design anymore? Like CRC cards and hashing out expert patterns from users.