3 ms·

I've been writing Datalog for the last week or so. It took me a bit to adapt to the syntax (also, [1] helped), but now I find myself enjoying the combination of

I've been writing Datalog for the last week or so. It took me a bit to adapt to the syntax (also, [1] helped), but now I find myself enjoying the combination of terseness and expressiveness. It's probably a matter of familiarity, but looking at Flux, it seems both noisier than Datalog and less readable than SQL. Given that readability is a goal for Flux, I guess it's a matter of subjectivity: readable for whom? What background do you have in order for Flux to look readable? 1: http://www.learndatalogtoday.org/ http://www.learndatalogtoday.org/

pauldix 8y ago
On some level, readability is a subjective thing. So is expressiveness and general feel for a language. It's about aesthetics and reasonable people can disagree about language and API design choices. We're making our choices and we hope that a good number of people come to agree with them. However, part of the engine design is to decouple the language from the actual execution. The engine takes a DAG represented as a JSON object. We'll have parsers that create that DAG from Flux or from other languages like PromQL or anything that people might think of.