Re: The tragedy of SQL

On 9/14/21 12:51 PM, Mladen Gogala wrote:
> Replies in-line
>
> On 9/14/21 01:51, Guyren Howe wrote:
>> They are making a decent decision. SQL is a *fucking terrible*
>> language, which I don’t blame them for not wanting to learn.
>
> Based on what criteria?
>
>
>>
>> The whole industry, programming languages, infrastructure, everything
>> would have developed differently if relations were a natural,
>> pleasurable thing to use in any programming language. Like an Array,
>> or a Hash.
>
> Thee is nothing natural about either relations or arrays and
> hashes/dictionaries. Relations are pretty literal implementation of the
> basic set theory. Having a decent understanding of the basic set theory
> is a condition  for understanding SQL. Now, we can discuss whether a
> language implementing a mathematical theory is "good" or "bad", whatever
> the meaning of "good" or "bad" in the given context. Historically, SQL
> is a good fit for the banking business and accounting and that is why it
> is still around.
>

I can see what you are saying. Still as someone that comes from a
biology background and a basic understanding of math I will say SQL has
a broader appeal. All those years of memorizing organism classifications
inadvertently led me to set theory; 'all dogs are animals, not all
animals are dogs'. Also, time spent identifying plants/critters via
dichotomous keys led me to boolean logic. The upshot is that once I got
involved with SQL databases the basics made sense. The details I am
still learning.

>
> --
> I'll speak the key, the whole key and nothing but the key, so help me Codd.
> Mladen Gogala
> Database Consultant
> Tel: (347) 321-1217
> https://dbwhisperer.wordpress.com
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com