>Writing in assembly what could be written in SQL is definitely less efficient from a productivity point of view. You mean productivity as in cognitive workloa

>Writing in assembly what could be written in SQL is definitely less efficient from a productivity point of view. You mean productivity as in cognitive workloads can be so high in assembly that it's not efficient? I choose to use a narrow definition of assembly because my argument is that the productivity gains given to an intelligent person by abstractions above assembly language are inconsequential. It wouldn't make sense to use a broader definition. You use the word Productivity but we're really talking about the same thing or in other words "the loss of productivity due to cognitive workloads." Thus your argument is circular to mine and therefore ineffective. My definition of efficiency is true. SQL eventually executes assembly commands thus it is a higher level of abstraction than assembly and thus it can only be equally or less efficient in terms of space and time complexity. Realistically, the assembly code actually executed is most likely not the most efficient way to execute the code.