4 ms·
Let's be honest: If you could make these choices more natural then you would have done so by now. If you could make SQL better than it is, you already would hav
by hug 9y ago
Let's be honest: If you could make these choices more natural then you would have done so by now. If you could make SQL better than it is, you already would have done that as well. In fact, if most people who are interested in SQL could make SQL better than SQL is, we wouldn't be using SQL anymore.
We're not using it because we have some weird tradition we enforce. We're not using it because we like the way it looks, the way it writes, or the way it handles. We're not using it because we've tried to use ORMs and those ORMs have proved conclusively better across use cases than SQL.
The reason we use it is because we don't yet have a better solution. If you can write a better solution than SQL I would love to hear about it: I absolutely loathe SQL, but I use it because out of everything I've seen, it's the simplest and most elegant solution to the problem that I've ever come across.
So yeah, while we could possibly and should definitely make SQL better if we can, I don't think that suggesting that we just re-do it from scratch is the way to go. That way lies madness, and possibly javascript frameworks.
- Terr_ 9y agoI think you're discounting network-effects and historical inertia. Even things which are functionally very simple to implement won't necessarily catch on, ex: "If you could make keyboard layouts more practical than QWERTY, then you would have done so by now."
- hug 9y agoI mean, maybe I am, maybe I'm not. How many other languages from the '70s haven't been replaced in a domain where they should have been? And, I mean, maybe your example isn't really the best example you could have given. Name a layout quote-unquote more practical than QWERTY that should have caught on but didn't. Dvorak? No faster. Colmac? Nah. Any, y'know, studied benefits? None I can find, at least not with a P-value worth mentioning. I'm not saying SQL is the definitive end of database query languages, of course, because that would be silly. There is, almost certainly, a more objective truth. What I'm saying is good luck finding it; It's only semi-cynically that I say I wish you luck finding a better language than SQL. I honestly, with all my heart, wish that SQL could be replaced with something better, because I hate SQL. When some guy comes along and is like "we should do a better SQL!" the answer is yes, we should, but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath,
- tome 9y ago> And, I mean, maybe your example isn't really the best example you could have given. Name a layout quote-unquote more practical than QWERTY that should have caught on but didn't. Dvorak? No faster. Colmac? Nah. Any, y'know, studied benefits? None I can find, at least not with a P-value worth mentioning. Do you believe that all keyboard layouts are of indistinguishable practicality? That seems to be the inescapable conclusion of your claim.
- marcosdumay 9y agoAgain, can you name any study that found a benefit with a non-laughable p-value? If nobody can, then one just has to conclude they are indistinguishable.
- tome 9y agoI'm not asking what hug concludes, I'm asking what he/she believes. What we believe and what we scientifically conclude can be quite divergent things.
- hug 9y agoSorry for taking so long to get back to you: What I believe is that there are currently no keyboard layouts worth the hassle of switching, and to be honest I have a bit of a problem believing that there's any particular layout of 12 inch by 3 inch bit of space covered in linearly activated keys that is going to ever change that fact. Most changes in keyboard layouts are obviated by the fact that peoples fingers are more flexible than the language they type in. Do I believe there's better possible input methods than a 104-key keyboard? Most certainly. Have we got any yet? I don't think so.
- tome 9y agoThanks for the response. For most people I'd agree with you. I found my RSI symptoms were significantly improved by switching to Dvorak though. I concede that is not a scientific test :)
- vinceguidry 9y agoI honestly don't think we are. The more I learn about databases, the more I realize just how hoary that world is, teeming with verdant beasts just itching to snatch you away from your comfortable application into Cthulian madness. SQL abstracts all of that away. Honestly we should thank the computing gods and make daily offerings that such a thing is even possible.
- jeltz 9y agoI think there is some network-effect and inertia, but I also think it is hard to design a query language which is significantly better than SQL. All attempts I have used have instead been clearly worse.
- default-kramer 9y agoI share your opinion that SQL is a very flawed language but it is still the best option I know of. I am absolutely sure someone could make a better SQL from scratch. (But you are correct that most people won't be able to.) I am not a language designer but I've been working on an SQL generator (almost DSL) in Racket. Although it's still very rough, I like it better than SQL for writing views and stored procedures. Imagine if a world-class language designer developed a new query language for your RDBMS of choice. It would probably fix most of the things you loathe.