3 ms·
Having used (a lot) of Hive SQL, I absolutely do need your query language. SQL is fundamentally incapable of expressing any sort of abstraction, so non-trivial
by tikhonj 3y ago
Having used (a lot) of Hive SQL, I absolutely do need your query language. SQL is fundamentally incapable of expressing any sort of abstraction, so non-trivial queries quickly become completely incomprehensible, unmaintainable and bug-prone.
Learning a new language is a one-time, up-front cost. Dealing with an awkward, inexpressive query language that integrates poorly with my main language, my types or my interface description languages is an ongoing source of painful friction. Learning something new should not be nearly the barrier to adoption that it seems to be for most people!
SQL's shortcomings seem so clear and omnipresent that I legitimately do not understand why everybody seems so drawn to it. Are the usage patterns for code against a transactional database so different from the sort of Hive queries I've had to deal with for data engineering and machine learning? Is everybody happy with abstractions layered over SQL like ORMs?
Why can't we have, I don't know, some typed variant of Datalog or something instead?
- 9dev 3y agoNot that I fundamentally disagree with you, but SQL has been the dominant query language for more than half a century. This lends it some credence for being a quite passable solution, don’t you think?
- tikhonj 3y agoIt's evidence that SQL isn't entirely unusable—but I've worked with too much popular technology to believe it means anything more than that.
- alexchamberlain 3y agoAren't Views SQL's answer to an abstraction?
- jeltz 3y agoBecause the alternatives are worse. It is that simple.
- 1st1 3y agoCheck out EdgeDB, you'll like it.