Re: The tragedy of SQL

It is kind of a purists fallacy. Point being if you could just write ASM
code it would be the best.

When in reality, a database is used not because it is the best technical
database, but is used by many people. Something that other developers can
pickup and use without reading a 200 page manual and study for a year on
end. Although maybe stuff would be better if everyone did that, on the
other hand might just be wasted effort.

You complain about no-SQL database but actually then advocate for it, by
saying SQL is sad. I find Postgres as a traditional RDB and has specific
use cases. If you compare that to Clickhouse which has a very different use
case. Don't compare timeseriesdb, because even that has limitations that
clickhouse surpasses at scale. Just an example of a no-SQL database.

If you do start a new database, let me know. I would like to see that in
action.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:20 AM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> On 9/14/21 10:10 AM, Michael Nolan wrote:
>
> I started programming in 1967, and over the last 50+ years I've programmed
> in more languages than I would want to list. I spent a decade writing in
> FORTRAN on a GA 18/30 (essentially a clone of the IBM 1130) with limited
> memory space, so you had to write EFFICIENT code, something that is a bit
> of a lost art these days. I also spent a decade writing in COBOL.
>
> I've not found many tasks that I couldn't find a way to write in whatever
> language I had available to write it in. There may be bad (or at least
> inefficient) languages, but there are lots of bad programmers.
> --
> Mike Nolan
> htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com
>
> OK, I'm maybe responsible for this thread turning into a diatribe. I
> shouted at OP 'cause he shouted at us. My mistake, and I apologize.
> I'm probably closer to Mike's "bad programmers" than I would care to admit
> but fully believe software is a "people problem" more than most of us
> realize.
>

--
Scottix(at)Gmail(dot)com