4 ms·

In case anyone is wondering he is talking about EdgeDB (https://www.edgedb.com/ https://www.edgedb.com/)

nalgeon 3y ago
No. I'm talking about "SQL shaming" and about my preference for SQL over yet-another-query-language. I have absolutely nothing against EdgeDB or its creators. As far as I can tell, it's a great product.
- ayhanfuat 3y ago
  All your example queries and quotations are from the EdgeDB landing page. Even if you are talking about "SQL shaming" you are very specifically talking about EdgeDB's SQL shaming.
  - dewey 3y ago
    You are missing the point, there's a reason why they don't name the database or link to it. It's a general behaviour that comes up with many new data stores or tools where you can query data. You could replace the images and examples with a different database that does something similar and the point would still stand.
    - ayhanfuat 3y ago
      > there's a reason why they don't name the database or link to it That's a very commonly known technique where you purposefully take only the overly simplified points that you want to counter so that's easy to build arguments or say things like "What can your language offer besides being created in the 2020s?". This is not to say the author or majority of the readers would find what EdgeQL offers, other than being created in the 2020s, valuable but at least you wouldn't be fighting a straw man.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  The joy of SQL is that it's so high-level. Other responses note some (to me) esoteric enterprise use-cases for which SQL may not sufficiently describe exotic data vistas. Sure. But most of the "shaming" one encounters seems to be about advertising some sort of magic wand product more than pointing out a substantial woe in a system that has been prominent for a half century.
  - 8note 3y ago
    It is, and it isn't. Similar to prolog, you start high level, then have to bend over backwards making your high level description into an implementation aware low level description, by mashing the high level components together into the right spell to make the low level implementation go brr
bokwoon 3y ago
https://twitter.com/edgedatabase/status/1620582614703964160 https://twitter.com/edgedatabase/status/1620582614703964160 EdgeQL: select Child {name} filter .<child[is Parent].name = 'Uma Thurman'; SQL: select child.name from child join parent_child_rel using (child_id) join parent using (parent_id) where parent.name = 'Uma Thurman'; IMO EdgeQL is going too far with the sigils

No. I'm talking about "SQL shaming" and about my preference for SQL over yet-another-query-language. I have absolutely nothing against EdgeDB or its creators. As far as I can tell, it's a great product.

ayhanfuat 3y ago
All your example queries and quotations are from the EdgeDB landing page. Even if you are talking about "SQL shaming" you are very specifically talking about EdgeDB's SQL shaming.
- dewey 3y ago
  You are missing the point, there's a reason why they don't name the database or link to it. It's a general behaviour that comes up with many new data stores or tools where you can query data. You could replace the images and examples with a different database that does something similar and the point would still stand.
  - ayhanfuat 3y ago
    > there's a reason why they don't name the database or link to it That's a very commonly known technique where you purposefully take only the overly simplified points that you want to counter so that's easy to build arguments or say things like "What can your language offer besides being created in the 2020s?". This is not to say the author or majority of the readers would find what EdgeQL offers, other than being created in the 2020s, valuable but at least you wouldn't be fighting a straw man.
smitty1e 3y ago
The joy of SQL is that it's so high-level. Other responses note some (to me) esoteric enterprise use-cases for which SQL may not sufficiently describe exotic data vistas. Sure. But most of the "shaming" one encounters seems to be about advertising some sort of magic wand product more than pointing out a substantial woe in a system that has been prominent for a half century.
- 8note 3y ago
  It is, and it isn't. Similar to prolog, you start high level, then have to bend over backwards making your high level description into an implementation aware low level description, by mashing the high level components together into the right spell to make the low level implementation go brr

bokwoon 3y ago

https://twitter.com/edgedatabase/status/1620582614703964160 https://twitter.com/edgedatabase/status/1620582614703964160 EdgeQL: select Child {name} filter .<child[is Parent].name = 'Uma Thurman'; SQL: select child.name from child join parent_child_rel using (child_id) join parent using (parent_id) where parent.name = 'Uma Thurman'; IMO EdgeQL is going too far with the sigils