| From: | Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Raymond Brinzer <ray(dot)brinzer(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mladen Gogala <gogala(dot)mladen(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? |
| Date: | 2022-02-11 05:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | 7523152a-fa84-4794-898d-bc50f8d2c896@Spark |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
I’m not proposing some crackpot half-baked idea here. There are well-defined and researched alternatives to SQL.
The most fully-developed you-can-use-today offering is Datomic, which uses Datalog as its query language. If you know Prolog, and how that is kind of database-like, Datomic is pretty much a variant of Prolog.
I don’t use it because it’s closed source.
On Feb 10, 2022, 21:15 -0800, Raymond Brinzer <ray(dot)brinzer(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:56 PM Guyren Howe <guyren(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > I feel like anyone who is defending SQL here isn’t aware of how much better the alternatives are, and how bad SQL really is.
> >
> > Have you written a language description we can read and talk about?
> >
> --
> Ray Brinzer
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-02-11 05:28:49 | Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? |
| Previous Message | Raymond Brinzer | 2022-02-11 05:15:30 | Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? |