4 ms·

You're still not getting it. First-class status means that anywhere a value or variable can be used, a query or table should also be able to appear, and vice ve

You're still not getting it. First-class status means that anywhere a value or variable can be used, a query or table should also be able to appear, and vice versa. This means a table or query can appear as a return type, a parameter to a stored procedure or query, a variable, and so on. SQL just does not have this, it instead has 15 different second class ways to handle tables and queries that try to make up for the fact that they are not first-class values. These include CTEs, table valued functions, views, etc.

mr_toad 4y ago
> You're still not getting it. First-class status means that anywhere a value or variable can be used, a query or table should also be able to appear, and vice versa. This means a table or query can appear as a return type, a parameter to a stored procedure or query, a variable, and so on. I doubt you could implement a query planner that would cope with that degree of flexibility. Which means you’d be forced to deal with the mechanics of the query, pushing you away from declarative SQL and into procedural and functional programming. At which point you might as well ditch SQL anyway.
- naasking 4y ago
  Without these features, people have to resort to dynamically generated SQL queries in procedural or functional languages, which is much worse! SQL has also become significantly more complicated by adding all sorts of second-class features to get around this composability limitation (CTEs, table valued functions, views, etc.). Besides, I don't think it would be as bad as you say. You can approach it as a simple template expansion into flat SQL queries except where a data dependency occurs, at which point template expansion proceeds in stages, one for each dependency. LINQ on .NET provides most of the composability I'm talking about, although it has a few limitations as well. Still worlds better than raw SQL.
pgwhalen 4y ago
Usually I balk at the idea of of someone describing a language feature as “first class” because it seems to wishy washy. But in this thread you’ve shown me that maybe the best definition is through “proof by negation,” by patiently responding to arguments and demonstrating why a certain usage and the ensuing restriction around it means it is not first class. Bravo!
- naasking 4y ago
  I agree the term is often abused, but I think the wikipedia page actually does a decent job of making the notion somewhat precise, along the lines I've been arguing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen If you want to see what queries as first-class values looks like, LINQ in .NET is pretty close. I can actually write a series of queries that build on and compose with each other, like this: IQueryable<Person> RunQuery(int userSelection) { var first = from x in People select x; var second = userSelection == 1 ? from x in first where x.Birthday > '2000-01-01' select x : from x in first where x.Name.Contains("Jane") select x; return DumbJoin(first, second); } IQueryable<Person> DumbJoin(IQueryable<Person> first, IQueryable<second>) { return from x in second join y in first on y.Role equals x.Role into g select g; } This query is nonsense, but it just shows you what composition really looks like when queries are first-class values. I wish raw SQL were like this!
dventimi 4y ago
In PostgreSQL at least, a table can appear as a return type of a function and as a parameter to a function. That's not nothing.

mr_toad 4y ago

> You're still not getting it. First-class status means that anywhere a value or variable can be used, a query or table should also be able to appear, and vice versa. This means a table or query can appear as a return type, a parameter to a stored procedure or query, a variable, and so on. I doubt you could implement a query planner that would cope with that degree of flexibility. Which means you’d be forced to deal with the mechanics of the query, pushing you away from declarative SQL and into procedural and functional programming. At which point you might as well ditch SQL anyway.

naasking 4y ago
Without these features, people have to resort to dynamically generated SQL queries in procedural or functional languages, which is much worse! SQL has also become significantly more complicated by adding all sorts of second-class features to get around this composability limitation (CTEs, table valued functions, views, etc.). Besides, I don't think it would be as bad as you say. You can approach it as a simple template expansion into flat SQL queries except where a data dependency occurs, at which point template expansion proceeds in stages, one for each dependency. LINQ on .NET provides most of the composability I'm talking about, although it has a few limitations as well. Still worlds better than raw SQL.

pgwhalen 4y ago

Usually I balk at the idea of of someone describing a language feature as “first class” because it seems to wishy washy. But in this thread you’ve shown me that maybe the best definition is through “proof by negation,” by patiently responding to arguments and demonstrating why a certain usage and the ensuing restriction around it means it is not first class. Bravo!

naasking 4y ago
I agree the term is often abused, but I think the wikipedia page actually does a decent job of making the notion somewhat precise, along the lines I've been arguing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen If you want to see what queries as first-class values looks like, LINQ in .NET is pretty close. I can actually write a series of queries that build on and compose with each other, like this: IQueryable<Person> RunQuery(int userSelection) { var first = from x in People select x; var second = userSelection == 1 ? from x in first where x.Birthday > '2000-01-01' select x : from x in first where x.Name.Contains("Jane") select x; return DumbJoin(first, second); } IQueryable<Person> DumbJoin(IQueryable<Person> first, IQueryable<second>) { return from x in second join y in first on y.Role equals x.Role into g select g; } This query is nonsense, but it just shows you what composition really looks like when queries are first-class values. I wish raw SQL were like this!

dventimi 4y ago

In PostgreSQL at least, a table can appear as a return type of a function and as a parameter to a function. That's not nothing.