3 ms·
Your last paragraph is non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for the syntax to not be the interesting part, and for SQL to have been successful despite bad syn
by Certhas 6y ago
Your last paragraph is non sequitur. It is perfectly possible for the syntax to not be the interesting part, and for SQL to have been successful despite bad syntax. The underlying idea is brilliant, so the first syntax that exposed it sufficiently well got baked in as a path dependency, even though the syntax sucks.
- sanderjd 6y agoThe point I was trying to make was just that the syntax was irrelevant; it was neither a major advantage nor hindrance. I think this is the same as your point.
- Threeve303 6y agoOne thing I have experienced is that often times developers are coming from a world of object oriented programming, or just coming from a JavaScript world. Then often the storage and retrieval of data is an after thought during the development of an application. This is definitely true for CRUD apps. Then maybe the person used a framework to handle database interactions and now after a year or so, it’s not scaling well because the data access was not really given priority during development. So then the problem is the database engine or the syntax instead of proper design and planning. That’s not to say there are no drawbacks to writing most dialects of SQL. I just believe most of the hate over SQL is coming from a procedural mindset to a relational one.