5 ms·

SQL + recursive queries (an extension supported by everyone since the late 90s) is Turing complete. Thus every arrangement and selection of data is reachable by

SQL + recursive queries (an extension supported by everyone since the late 90s) is Turing complete. Thus every arrangement and selection of data is reachable by a query. Therefore there is nothing Malloy can do that SQL can't (I'm absolutely sure of it).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lolinder 4y ago
I think OP meant "can't" as in "probably wouldn't be able to come up with the queries", not that it's literally impossible. Malloy compiles to SQL, so it's by definition impossible for it to express something SQL cannot.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  By that definition, in that case, OP "can't" express themselves in plain English.
  - anon84873628 4y ago
    Pretty sure OP meant emphasis on _you_ can't. As in, things a human can't do.
wruza 4y ago
There is also nothing Java can do that Brainfuck cannot. It is very easy to implement an extensible web server in BF, you just need to F your B.
- IIAOPSW 4y ago
  In any language there are going to be certain possible arrangements which take an exponential number of words to reach. By simple counting arguments, some things are always incompressible. I can contort myself if I so desired to find something easily reachable in Brainfuck that would be tedious to reach in JS. The only "way out" is for one language to force rote memorization of sophisticated abstractions as part of its vocabulary. Eg you can make a language that is superficially more capable than Brainfuck because it contains all of Brainfuck as its vocabulary + a few extra words that encapsulate everything you need to implement an extensible web server. But that's not really an improvement in expressive ease, you've just swept the difficulty of constructing those expressions into learning the language in the first place, then showed off how easy it is to express the stuff you just defined words to express. You don't get more utility out of the marginal extra vocabulary than the work you put into defining the marginal extra vocabulary.
  - wruza 4y ago
    I think you’ve completely written off human limits to produce and maintain correct code, while being technically correct. People swear when they have to extract a symbol from an expression because that pollutes a scope and reduces readability (see “assembly” as an extreme example of it). You can’t expect them to be cool with a ladder of queries to do simplest things. They choose languages for comfort much more than for technical yadda yadda. SQL is only comfortable in comparison to other '80s tech.
    - IIAOPSW 4y ago
      Human language and reasoning ability also runs into the problem that certain ideas really do take a whole book to convey whereas others fit into fifty words (like this post). We just don't notice the limitation on our expressiveness for the same reason fish don't notice they live in water.
    - cryptonector 4y ago
      I learned SQL in the late 00s. I like SQL. It's not Stockholm Syndrome either, I don't think. SQL isn't stylish, and it isn't beautiful, but it's pretty clear in spite of that. More than that, SQL is a lingua franca for databases, and it's very powerful -- this is a pretty difficult thing to beat, and the only thing that I've seen that can do it is LINQ, which isn't a language so much as an API for constructing query ASTs.
nextaccountic 4y ago
In practice, it may be much easier to write a malloy query than the equivalent sql query.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  Or it may not be. Showcase the typical way you'd write a complicated SQL query and compare it against Malloy. It's like looking at EF4-6 output and thinking it's impressive and doing superhuman tasks because the generated queries were suboptimal and complicated.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

lolinder 4y ago

I think OP meant "can't" as in "probably wouldn't be able to come up with the queries", not that it's literally impossible. Malloy compiles to SQL, so it's by definition impossible for it to express something SQL cannot.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
By that definition, in that case, OP "can't" express themselves in plain English.
- anon84873628 4y ago
  Pretty sure OP meant emphasis on _you_ can't. As in, things a human can't do.

wruza 4y ago

There is also nothing Java can do that Brainfuck cannot. It is very easy to implement an extensible web server in BF, you just need to F your B.

IIAOPSW 4y ago
In any language there are going to be certain possible arrangements which take an exponential number of words to reach. By simple counting arguments, some things are always incompressible. I can contort myself if I so desired to find something easily reachable in Brainfuck that would be tedious to reach in JS. The only "way out" is for one language to force rote memorization of sophisticated abstractions as part of its vocabulary. Eg you can make a language that is superficially more capable than Brainfuck because it contains all of Brainfuck as its vocabulary + a few extra words that encapsulate everything you need to implement an extensible web server. But that's not really an improvement in expressive ease, you've just swept the difficulty of constructing those expressions into learning the language in the first place, then showed off how easy it is to express the stuff you just defined words to express. You don't get more utility out of the marginal extra vocabulary than the work you put into defining the marginal extra vocabulary.
- wruza 4y ago
  I think you’ve completely written off human limits to produce and maintain correct code, while being technically correct. People swear when they have to extract a symbol from an expression because that pollutes a scope and reduces readability (see “assembly” as an extreme example of it). You can’t expect them to be cool with a ladder of queries to do simplest things. They choose languages for comfort much more than for technical yadda yadda. SQL is only comfortable in comparison to other '80s tech.
  - IIAOPSW 4y ago
    Human language and reasoning ability also runs into the problem that certain ideas really do take a whole book to convey whereas others fit into fifty words (like this post). We just don't notice the limitation on our expressiveness for the same reason fish don't notice they live in water.
  - cryptonector 4y ago
    I learned SQL in the late 00s. I like SQL. It's not Stockholm Syndrome either, I don't think. SQL isn't stylish, and it isn't beautiful, but it's pretty clear in spite of that. More than that, SQL is a lingua franca for databases, and it's very powerful -- this is a pretty difficult thing to beat, and the only thing that I've seen that can do it is LINQ, which isn't a language so much as an API for constructing query ASTs.

nextaccountic 4y ago

In practice, it may be much easier to write a malloy query than the equivalent sql query.

ThunderSizzle 4y ago
Or it may not be. Showcase the typical way you'd write a complicated SQL query and compare it against Malloy. It's like looking at EF4-6 output and thinking it's impressive and doing superhuman tasks because the generated queries were suboptimal and complicated.