4 ms·
That's not true though. SQL is not computationally complete. It does abstract over the complexity of access to relational data. And it is still used and useful.
by maweki 6y ago
That's not true though. SQL is not computationally complete. It does abstract over the complexity of access to relational data. And it is still used and useful. SQL is also not automatically brittle.
There is a problem of a language gap, a mismatch between SQL structures and internal types, and all in all maybe a gap in typed code and unit tests.
That does not mean you should implement your own database.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ben-schaaf 6y agoPlain SQL is not turning complete, however SQL/PSM is and something along those lines is supported by (most?) database implementations like PostgreSQL, Oracle SQL, MySQL, etc. Seems to me like SQL is a perfect example of most people agreeing that the extra power/complexity is indeed a requirement.
- 0x445442 6y agoNot sure the extensions were really needed though. Certainly the gaps could be filled externally and in a lot of shops it's what's mandated. I think an argument could be made that the extentions you're bringing up is more about a turf war between DBA's and Developers than about neccessity.
- antpls 6y agoMost of the time, the SQL queries are only useful when they are part of a bigger application, which is often written using a Turing complete language.