4 ms·
>> It should be possible for an amateur to quickly write an SQL validator as a starting project > ...why? I don't know about amateurs, but if the typical inte
by mannykannot 6y ago
>> It should be possible for an amateur to quickly write an SQL validator as a starting project
> ...why?
I don't know about amateurs, but if the typical intended user of the language does not have a good grasp of what is and is not valid, they will often be reduced to trying one thing after another until they hit upon something that seems to work, with no real understanding of what it does. This is not how robust, correct software is written.
- sanderjd 6y agoThat seems like a completely different point. (Unless I misunderstand what a "SQL validator" is, which is definitely possible.) I do think this way of utilizing SQL is a problem, but I would lay the blame for it at the feet of a lamentably widespread anti-intellectualism in the field. It is true that the relational model is not trivial and must be learned before SQL makes much sense. But it is not too much to expect from someone who wants to be a practitioner in this field.
- mannykannot 6y agoI agree that someone who wants to be a practitioner in this field should understand the relational model, but the issue here is that SQL introduces inconsistencies and complications that are not inherent in the relational model, and, to some extent are avoidable. A justifiable emphasis on professionalism does not absolve SQL of these faults and does not render irrelevant attempts to find better language choices.
- sanderjd 6y agoSure, I don't disagree. My point is that the perfect is the enemy of the good, and SQL is the good.