Re: The tragedy of SQL

Many languages are awesome. I'm always astonished at what great
things people have come up with, over the years; it's been a
wonderfully fertile field. We would certainly not be better off if
we'd just buckled down, and used COBOL and FORTRAN... or even
relatively good languages like C, APL, and Lisp.

It is certainly possible to change too lightly, for small reasons.
That doesn't mean that forever enduring the same problems is a good
idea.

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 2:18 AM Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On 9/13/21 11:51 PM, 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.
>
> 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.
> On Sep 13, 2021, 22:45 -0700, Hemil Ruparel <hemilruparel2002(at)gmail(dot)com>, wrote:
>
> SQL is not the problem. Problem are the devs. I love SQL. I hate orms. The problem with databases is people refuse to treat it as the entity it is and want to use their beautiful OO system. Problem is databases are not OO. We need to recognize that and treat databases as databases.
>
> All languages are fucking terrible. There are thousands of the them because some people bump into a feature they don't like and run off an make another fucking terrible language. For the love of God, please don't be one of those people. The rest of us find languages we can abide and do productive things with using features we like and avoiding those we don't. I've always felt it was no small miracle the vendors managed to agree to ODBC/JDBC driver specs (even though the SQL language definition is "more like guidelines"). Go scream at the DOM and JavaScript.

--
Ray Brinzer