7 ms·

I think you mean the relational model is timeless. SQL is simply just not a great language, for an otherwise great idea.

geezerjay 7y ago
Blindly asserting that SQL is bad without providing any argument or proof does not contradict OP's opinion on SQL.
- setr 7y ago
  The article itself gives a pretty decent description of how the language falls down.. and the ggp’s expression of his impression pretty trivially just maps to the relational model/algebra.... so all necessary arguments have been made :-)
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    really? the article has a handful of strange edge cases that you'll almost never smack into in practice, and that's cause to say the language is crap? Given the vast usage of SQL and its overwhelming popularity, if there were real problems with the language then there would be a lot more noise about them. But most people seem to be happy with it. If it's not broken, let's not fix it, eh?
    - setr 7y ago
      The only edge cases I could find in the article were the discussion of nulls... which aren’t so much an edge case as they are just an ever-present problem that no one really notices until it hurts (its not at all difficult to write a broken-on-null query). Is there something else you’re referring to? Afaict, everything else was just trivially observable aspects of the language >Given the vast usage of SQL and its overwhelming popularity, if there were real problems with the language then there would be a lot more noise about them. But most people seem to be happy with it. In what universe does popularity imply quality? Certainly not the one I’m in — Avengers endgame is apparently #2 gross worldwide ever :-)
      - orange8 7y ago
        I think the point he is making is that why hasn't anything better come up to better represent the relational model in over 40 years?
        setr 7y ago
        There are other models as well eg datalog, but popularity is a factor of many things — a major factor with databases is that historically the engine is far more important than the language; you would expect users to choose an engine, and whatever language came with it. Which implies that the decision is on the producer side, not the consumers. Which finally implies that usage popularity is not adequately explained by user preference, because you wouldn’t expect user language preference to have significant impact on the decision making process. But regardless, are you also going to claim that C, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, etc were optimal in their respective fields, during their respective eras, because they held total market domination? Incumbency is one hell if a drug.. Bandwaggoning and deffering to the status quo is not argument for quality; there are too many factors involved beyond quality itself. Fixable flaws in the language have been pointed out and not been addressed in this conversation chain. Alternatives languages exist, both academically and practically; they don’t come alone. Its not a competition in a void, the ecosystem has to move together. This occurs in every aspect of tech (did you ever wonder if there could be an OS other than unix and window styles?). Asking why SQL was never beaten out in popularity is a hugely different question from whether there can be a better language than SQL, with largely unrelated amswers(Oracle/IBM were hardly fair players in anything they did)
        geezerjay 7y ago
        > There are other models as well eg datalog, but popularity is a factor of many things The lack of popularity is also a reflection of how the string of next best things have failed to actually deliver on their promise, accompanied by the lack of a rational argument to adopt them instead of using a time-tested technology.
        7y ago
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      There are real problems with COBOL and, yet, it's used in the most critical parts of our societal infrastructure. People just learned to live with the problems and are by now completely oblivious to them.
    - ErwinSmout 7y ago
      SQL is too broken to even try fixing.
  - LoSboccacc 7y ago
    there's a reason why not everything in SQL is a set and it's that you can do a lot of mathematical work from inside the engines. this was largely overlooked in the article and undefined what operations between set of multiple cardinality would require and if this would result back to what they call unwieldy runtime errors when doing math over set of mismatched cardinality.
    - setr 7y ago
      >there's a reason why not everything in SQL is a set and it's that you can do a lot of mathematical work from inside the engines I don’t see the relationship between those two things; or rather, what the latter even means. Can you expand? Also, apparently the “sets” described in the article are actually multisets aka bags [0] — so the same semantics as any other RDBMS/SQL. No idea why they’d confound the two, especially when set vs bag semantics is a well-discussed topic in the literature.. [0] https://edgedb.com/docs/edgeql/overview/#everything-is-a-set https://edgedb.com/docs/edgeql/overview/#everything-is-a-set
      - LoSboccacc 7y ago
        something like this SELECT StudentID, Name, (SELECT COUNT(x) FROM StudentExam WHERE StudentExam.StudentID = Student.StudentID) / (SELECT COUNT(x) FROM StudentEnrollmetnPeriods WHERE StudentEnrollmetnPeriods.StudentID = Student.StudentID) AS ExamsTakenPerYear FROM Student ORDER BY ExamsTaken DESC; works because the result from aggregate are scalar and thus math operations always meaningful, albeit this in particular might not be the most brilliant example, there's definitely a case for running such operations on the server, because you might filter on the results, say, like "select all student with less than 2 exam per year average" at which point either you have the distinction between scalar and set in the language itself and you can filter invalid queries at the parsing level or you have to do the checks at runtime when two set are in an operation with mixed cardinality, halt the query and throw an error. edit: count(x) because I don't know how to escape asteriks
        HelloNurse 7y ago
- ErwinSmout 7y ago
  Almost anything written by Date and/or Darwen during the last 30 years is stock full of arguments and proofs that SQL is a horrendously poor language. pls don't come complaining that all of those arguments are not replicated here. I'll give you just one : in SQL, you can write "WHERE 4 > (SELECT COUNT() FROM ... WHERE ... )" but you cannot write "WHERE (SELECT COUNT() FROM ... WHERE ... ) < 4" [Darwen, "The askew Wall"]. Or iow, for certain specific kinds of 'a' and 'b', you can write "a < b" but not "b > a". Do you actually know ANY language that exposes that kind of thing ??? REALLY ???

geezerjay 7y ago

Blindly asserting that SQL is bad without providing any argument or proof does not contradict OP's opinion on SQL.

setr 7y ago
The article itself gives a pretty decent description of how the language falls down.. and the ggp’s expression of his impression pretty trivially just maps to the relational model/algebra.... so all necessary arguments have been made :-)
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  really? the article has a handful of strange edge cases that you'll almost never smack into in practice, and that's cause to say the language is crap? Given the vast usage of SQL and its overwhelming popularity, if there were real problems with the language then there would be a lot more noise about them. But most people seem to be happy with it. If it's not broken, let's not fix it, eh?
  - setr 7y ago
    The only edge cases I could find in the article were the discussion of nulls... which aren’t so much an edge case as they are just an ever-present problem that no one really notices until it hurts (its not at all difficult to write a broken-on-null query). Is there something else you’re referring to? Afaict, everything else was just trivially observable aspects of the language >Given the vast usage of SQL and its overwhelming popularity, if there were real problems with the language then there would be a lot more noise about them. But most people seem to be happy with it. In what universe does popularity imply quality? Certainly not the one I’m in — Avengers endgame is apparently #2 gross worldwide ever :-)
    - orange8 7y ago
      I think the point he is making is that why hasn't anything better come up to better represent the relational model in over 40 years?
      - setr 7y ago
        There are other models as well eg datalog, but popularity is a factor of many things — a major factor with databases is that historically the engine is far more important than the language; you would expect users to choose an engine, and whatever language came with it. Which implies that the decision is on the producer side, not the consumers. Which finally implies that usage popularity is not adequately explained by user preference, because you wouldn’t expect user language preference to have significant impact on the decision making process. But regardless, are you also going to claim that C, Oracle, IBM, Microsoft, etc were optimal in their respective fields, during their respective eras, because they held total market domination? Incumbency is one hell if a drug.. Bandwaggoning and deffering to the status quo is not argument for quality; there are too many factors involved beyond quality itself. Fixable flaws in the language have been pointed out and not been addressed in this conversation chain. Alternatives languages exist, both academically and practically; they don’t come alone. Its not a competition in a void, the ecosystem has to move together. This occurs in every aspect of tech (did you ever wonder if there could be an OS other than unix and window styles?). Asking why SQL was never beaten out in popularity is a hugely different question from whether there can be a better language than SQL, with largely unrelated amswers(Oracle/IBM were hardly fair players in anything they did)
        geezerjay 7y ago
        > There are other models as well eg datalog, but popularity is a factor of many things The lack of popularity is also a reflection of how the string of next best things have failed to actually deliver on their promise, accompanied by the lack of a rational argument to adopt them instead of using a time-tested technology.
        7y ago
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    There are real problems with COBOL and, yet, it's used in the most critical parts of our societal infrastructure. People just learned to live with the problems and are by now completely oblivious to them.
  - ErwinSmout 7y ago
    SQL is too broken to even try fixing.
- LoSboccacc 7y ago
  there's a reason why not everything in SQL is a set and it's that you can do a lot of mathematical work from inside the engines. this was largely overlooked in the article and undefined what operations between set of multiple cardinality would require and if this would result back to what they call unwieldy runtime errors when doing math over set of mismatched cardinality.
  - setr 7y ago
    >there's a reason why not everything in SQL is a set and it's that you can do a lot of mathematical work from inside the engines I don’t see the relationship between those two things; or rather, what the latter even means. Can you expand? Also, apparently the “sets” described in the article are actually multisets aka bags [0] — so the same semantics as any other RDBMS/SQL. No idea why they’d confound the two, especially when set vs bag semantics is a well-discussed topic in the literature.. [0] https://edgedb.com/docs/edgeql/overview/#everything-is-a-set https://edgedb.com/docs/edgeql/overview/#everything-is-a-set
    - LoSboccacc 7y ago
      something like this SELECT StudentID, Name, (SELECT COUNT(x) FROM StudentExam WHERE StudentExam.StudentID = Student.StudentID) / (SELECT COUNT(x) FROM StudentEnrollmetnPeriods WHERE StudentEnrollmetnPeriods.StudentID = Student.StudentID) AS ExamsTakenPerYear FROM Student ORDER BY ExamsTaken DESC; works because the result from aggregate are scalar and thus math operations always meaningful, albeit this in particular might not be the most brilliant example, there's definitely a case for running such operations on the server, because you might filter on the results, say, like "select all student with less than 2 exam per year average" at which point either you have the distinction between scalar and set in the language itself and you can filter invalid queries at the parsing level or you have to do the checks at runtime when two set are in an operation with mixed cardinality, halt the query and throw an error. edit: count(x) because I don't know how to escape asteriks
      - HelloNurse 7y ago
ErwinSmout 7y ago
Almost anything written by Date and/or Darwen during the last 30 years is stock full of arguments and proofs that SQL is a horrendously poor language. pls don't come complaining that all of those arguments are not replicated here. I'll give you just one : in SQL, you can write "WHERE 4 > (SELECT COUNT() FROM ... WHERE ... )" but you cannot write "WHERE (SELECT COUNT() FROM ... WHERE ... ) < 4" [Darwen, "The askew Wall"]. Or iow, for certain specific kinds of 'a' and 'b', you can write "a < b" but not "b > a". Do you actually know ANY language that exposes that kind of thing ??? REALLY ???