3 ms·
SQL was also meant to give a wider range of people access to data. The “business analyst” comes to mind. And, I think SQL was successful. What it didn’t do was
by matwood 4y ago
SQL was also meant to give a wider range of people access to data. The “business analyst” comes to mind. And, I think SQL was successful.
What it didn’t do was reduce the need for programmers, because the new SQL users always wanted more data to answer more complex questions.
- raincole 4y agoI didn't mean SQL wan's a success. I meant, as the commenter above me said, a higher-level tool doesn't necessarily replace the lower-level ones, or reduce the need of them.
- gregjor 4y agoRelational databases replaced a whole raft of vendor-supplied databases and custom-built solutions. It was a new tool for software developers, not a replacement.
- thrown123098 4y agoA good chuckle of my career has been breaking outncustom tools out or a database because the database can't scale. IA is the new Excel.
- roundandround 4y agoI don't actually agree. SQL did replace the need for programmers, especially for complex questions. We sabotaged its interfaces to existing GUIs for mundane questions and made CRUD a limitless profession. The funny/sad part about computer science is that people don't want to understand the costs of customization and sales/management/marketing forever want it as a differentiator. SQL could have eliminated us from the flow of many niches as easily as the spreadsheet did from business operations. I think why it didn't has more to do with market timing.
- marcosdumay 4y agoSQL was too much ahead of its time, but we are indeed slowly adopting the "avoid operational specifications, use high-level languages, make your language fit the problem instead of the opposite" philosophy of the 4th generation languages.