Re: The tragedy of SQL

On 9/16/21 19:29, Guyren Howe wrote:
> Missing my original point here. The set theory is the _point_. SQL is 
> a gargantuan distraction from using it efficiently.
>
> Imagine if COBOL was the only widely-available programming language 
> with functions. You might use it, because functions are really great 
> abstraction for programming. That wouldn’t mean that COBOL wasn’t an 
> utterly awful language.
>
> SQL is like that, only for relations, sets and logic.


I am probably a bit biased because I am using SQL for a few weeks now. I 
was the first person certified for teaching Oracle 6 internals in the 
EMEA region and I was a certified Oracle 5.1.22 DBA on VAX/VMS. So, by 
using SQL for several weeks now, I grew attached to it and I like it. My 
second problem is my mathematical background. I have a Bsc in 
mathematics and was quite well acquainted not only with the basic set 
theory but also with things like Zermelo's  axiom of choice, Zorn's 
lemma and well ordering theorem. I am still quite familiar with the 
relational algebra, unions, intersections, Cartesian products, 
equivalence relations and alike. I think that SQL represents relational 
algebra quite well. It must be doing something right, because it lasts 
for so long. After all, it was created by a mathematician. There is a 
famous quote from the move "Chinatown" saying that politicians, ugly 
buildings, and whores all get respectable if they last long enough. The 
same applies to computer languages. I love the smell of SQL in the morning.


-- 
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