1. The SQL that I've seen output by PRQL isn't monstrous, at least no more than it would be coding by hand.
2. I do agree that I don't think PRQL will have much uptake until it is baked in to DB systems, at least as a plugin. One reason (among many) that I hate ORM systems is that with native SQL it's very easy for me to just capture a SQL statement from my DB logs and then search my code for an offending statement. But given how PRQL is transpiled, I don't see any reason it couldn't be essentially part of the query planner, so that query logs etc. are reported in PRQL and not SQL. E.g. the query planner already takes text (SQL) -> Query Plan, it seems rather straightforward to go text (PRQL) -> text (SQL) -> Query Plan, with the SQL intermediate just being an implementation detail I don't have to care about as a DB user.
1. The SQL that I've seen output by PRQL isn't monstrous, at least no more than it would be coding by hand.
2. I do agree that I don't think PRQL will have much uptake until it is baked in to DB systems, at least as a plugin. One reason (among many) that I hate ORM systems is that with native SQL it's very easy for me to just capture a SQL statement from my DB logs and then search my code for an offending statement. But given how PRQL is transpiled, I don't see any reason it couldn't be essentially part of the query planner, so that query logs etc. are reported in PRQL and not SQL. E.g. the query planner already takes text (SQL) -> Query Plan, it seems rather straightforward to go text (PRQL) -> text (SQL) -> Query Plan, with the SQL intermediate just being an implementation detail I don't have to care about as a DB user.