4 ms·
I don't write sql for a living, and the little I do in my free time is pretty miserable. I still think this is a really dumb idea. SQL, as hard as it can be t
by fake-name 8y ago
I don't write sql for a living, and the little I do in my free time is pretty miserable.
I still think this is a really dumb idea.
SQL, as hard as it can be to do stuff with SQL, at least you can use google for getting help. A obscure, single-database-specific with a completely un-googleable name is going to be a complete clusterfuck to try to do anything with it.
The name alone will make trying to get help with the language a disaster. The fact that it will have such limited market penetration (it only works on one specific time series database) don't make the unsearchable name any better.
------
If the author would come out and just admit they want to spend time intellectually masturbating over query language design (I think about inventing a "better" language in my free time too!), I'd have a lot more respect for the project.
- dsego 8y agoIsn't that the problem though? For even a mildly interesting problem you have to google and google for a correct and usually non-obvious solution. And when you find it, it usually works in only one dialect but not other (e.g. MS SQL vs MySQL). It's elitism at its finest, people probably get good money too writing obscure queries, no wonder they are so defensive. I think your comment shows short-sightedness.
- fake-name 8y ago....what? So your arguing that the solution to the annoyance of the platform-specific nature of SQL is to create a platform-specific language? Or do you think that this language won't heavily depend on the internal implementation of InfluxDB? If you believe that, I want to know what you're smoking. It's gotta be some good stuff.