4 ms·

Mine doesn't predate it but it's very confusing for me to read this opinion. From my point of view, it totally did happen? Can you imagine how many programmers

Mine doesn't predate it but it's very confusing for me to read this opinion. From my point of view, it totally did happen? Can you imagine how many programmers the company would've needed to get all the data a business analyst casually queries per day? What you're looking at is the quantity of people actually employed in the industry, not how many SQL made obsolete. The industry just grew so much that it didn't become an issue.

lozenge 4y ago
The industry grew because the desire for data analysis grew, which is because the technology's ability to meet the desire grew. This can repeat itself a couple more times.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Cotton gins and the Jevons effect. Give what even pessimistic AI alignment people are saying, I think you're correct that there are a few more repeats possible before AGI. (Whether the pessimists are correct that all of them will happen before the 30s, I cannot say).
gregjor 4y ago
A few things happened. Relational databases enabled more new development, larger databases, interoperability, all of which needed programmers. With more flexibility in the database companies could collect, store, and use more data. And that data had to get into the DBMS somehow: more code. Setting up and managing databases required DBAs, a role often filled by programmers in smaller companies, and still filled by programmers today. And only larger companies had business analysts. In smaller companies programmers or maybe technically-proficient managers did that work. Anyone who had devoted their career solely to building bespoke database systems had to pivot or walk in the late ‘80s, but very few programmers only did that — it was part of the larger application development. If you were good enough to write robust database code pre-Oracle you had plenty of options. In the ‘80s when RDBMSs started to take over I worked in enterprise logistics. Oracle created jobs at the places I worked, and no programmers had to leave because we got a better tool. I’ve worked in large and small organizations for 40+ years. I’ve never worked with a manager or analyst who could write SQL more complex than “SELECT * FROM orders WHERE total > 10000.” I’m sure they exist, but not in career-threatening numbers.
- visarga 4y ago
  AI impact will be the same - simplify here and there, but expand the scope and total amount of work because we will be doing so many more things.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  In my department I recruited DBAs as recent as last month and this is a permanent position filled by a team of several people that do just DBA work. I saw developers ("programmers") try to do this work in some small companies or in areas where the databases were small (hundreds of MB, a few GB), but I did not see that when the databases exceed 100 GB or when there are dozens of production SQL servers that need to run 24x7. Solutions are implemented based on needs.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    Big companies have DBAs. Small companies don’t, the programmers do it or they outsource to someone like me. Maybe ChatGPT will get good at designing relational database schemas, who knows?
aflag 4y ago
You're considering that every company that needs SQL today would hire enough developers to essentially write most of it from scratch. While some might, most companies that use SQL would not exist, because the cost of developing their product would be prohibitive.
- gregjor 4y ago
  Maybe. Before Oracle (mid-80s) every company did write their own database code. I think a lot of smaller companies would struggle if that was still a requirement, but if relational/SQL had not come along we’d have something else like it.
  - aflag 4y ago
    That's exactly my point, though. In the mid 80s there were a lot fewer companies producing software. Nowadays we have many more. Indeed SQL was not the only local maxima we could have gone for, but the point is that having an easy to use database with a powerful query language did not reduce the number of jobs, but instead increased it. Instead of a few companies hiring a lot of developers, we have a lot of companies hiring a few. The latter will usually mean more jobs.
    - gregjor 4y ago
      I think plummeting prices for hardware since the 1980s drove that, not relational databases.
      - aflag 4y ago
        If hardware was cheaper, but writing software required an army of developers to do it, the costs would still be too great. If you read carefully, my point isn't that SQL was the cause of the tech boom, but rather that SQL and other technologies that make developers more productive didn't really take jobs away, because the market for tech would be smaller if you needed too many developers to do anything. Imagine if every little web startup writing a custom CRUD for their business needs needed to write a new bespoke database. It simply would not be feasible or they'd need some crazy funding.
lr4444lr 4y ago
Or they just did less. Productivity gains make people expect more, not just make what they expect now easier.

lozenge 4y ago

The industry grew because the desire for data analysis grew, which is because the technology's ability to meet the desire grew. This can repeat itself a couple more times.

ben_w 4y ago
Cotton gins and the Jevons effect. Give what even pessimistic AI alignment people are saying, I think you're correct that there are a few more repeats possible before AGI. (Whether the pessimists are correct that all of them will happen before the 30s, I cannot say).

gregjor 4y ago

A few things happened. Relational databases enabled more new development, larger databases, interoperability, all of which needed programmers. With more flexibility in the database companies could collect, store, and use more data. And that data had to get into the DBMS somehow: more code. Setting up and managing databases required DBAs, a role often filled by programmers in smaller companies, and still filled by programmers today. And only larger companies had business analysts. In smaller companies programmers or maybe technically-proficient managers did that work. Anyone who had devoted their career solely to building bespoke database systems had to pivot or walk in the late ‘80s, but very few programmers only did that — it was part of the larger application development. If you were good enough to write robust database code pre-Oracle you had plenty of options. In the ‘80s when RDBMSs started to take over I worked in enterprise logistics. Oracle created jobs at the places I worked, and no programmers had to leave because we got a better tool. I’ve worked in large and small organizations for 40+ years. I’ve never worked with a manager or analyst who could write SQL more complex than “SELECT * FROM orders WHERE total > 10000.” I’m sure they exist, but not in career-threatening numbers.

visarga 4y ago
AI impact will be the same - simplify here and there, but expand the scope and total amount of work because we will be doing so many more things.
AdrianB1 4y ago
In my department I recruited DBAs as recent as last month and this is a permanent position filled by a team of several people that do just DBA work. I saw developers ("programmers") try to do this work in some small companies or in areas where the databases were small (hundreds of MB, a few GB), but I did not see that when the databases exceed 100 GB or when there are dozens of production SQL servers that need to run 24x7. Solutions are implemented based on needs.
- gregjor 4y ago
  Big companies have DBAs. Small companies don’t, the programmers do it or they outsource to someone like me. Maybe ChatGPT will get good at designing relational database schemas, who knows?

aflag 4y ago

You're considering that every company that needs SQL today would hire enough developers to essentially write most of it from scratch. While some might, most companies that use SQL would not exist, because the cost of developing their product would be prohibitive.

gregjor 4y ago
Maybe. Before Oracle (mid-80s) every company did write their own database code. I think a lot of smaller companies would struggle if that was still a requirement, but if relational/SQL had not come along we’d have something else like it.
- aflag 4y ago
  That's exactly my point, though. In the mid 80s there were a lot fewer companies producing software. Nowadays we have many more. Indeed SQL was not the only local maxima we could have gone for, but the point is that having an easy to use database with a powerful query language did not reduce the number of jobs, but instead increased it. Instead of a few companies hiring a lot of developers, we have a lot of companies hiring a few. The latter will usually mean more jobs.
  - gregjor 4y ago
    I think plummeting prices for hardware since the 1980s drove that, not relational databases.
    - aflag 4y ago
      If hardware was cheaper, but writing software required an army of developers to do it, the costs would still be too great. If you read carefully, my point isn't that SQL was the cause of the tech boom, but rather that SQL and other technologies that make developers more productive didn't really take jobs away, because the market for tech would be smaller if you needed too many developers to do anything. Imagine if every little web startup writing a custom CRUD for their business needs needed to write a new bespoke database. It simply would not be feasible or they'd need some crazy funding.

lr4444lr 4y ago

Or they just did less. Productivity gains make people expect more, not just make what they expect now easier.