In my experience, SQL is successful despite its syntax, not because of it. Wasn't it originally intended to be an end-user interface? It's failed at that. No

In my experience, SQL is successful despite its syntax, not because of it. Wasn't it originally intended to be an end-user interface? It's failed at that. Now even programmers choose to use an ORM to insulate themselves from it. Even the programmers I know who don't use OO still use an abstraction library to avoid the need to touch SQL directly. SQL isn't even one language. It's a family of incompatible dialects. I've never written more than the most trivial SQL that would even be valid (much less the same result) on any other SQL dialect. Even though it has ISO and ANSI standards, every database in the world requires proprietary rules and conventions and extensions. How do you quote identifiers? Are strings case sensitive? Is '' the same as NULL? How do you create an index? What data types are there? We can't even agree on the most basic aspects of syntax. It's "incredibly successful" in the same way that early HTML and JS was. People wanted access to the underlying platform so badly they'll put up with a nutty design and gratuitous incompatibilities. They don't really have a choice, and many are going out of their way to build their own alternatives because the vendors won't.