4 ms·
Same. I first learnt SQL 20 years ago as a teenager and even back then I remember thinking how odd and, quite literally, backwards the language was. Back then I
by globular-toast 3y ago
Same. I first learnt SQL 20 years ago as a teenager and even back then I remember thinking how odd and, quite literally, backwards the language was. Back then I probably thought I just didn't understand enough to see why it had to be so. Now I know there is no reason. SQL has become more like a natural language. There's no arguing against it, you have to speak it even if it doesn't make sense. But it's not a natural language and we can do better.
- ako 3y agoIt’s optimized for reading and use: the first time you see a query written by another developer, the interesting bit is what data it returns (the select part). Once you know that, you may be interested in the how, where does that data come from? Same for functions or methods, you first see the signature, input and output structures, before you see the implementation.
- globular-toast 3y agoGood point, I didn't think of it like that and, oddly, I do often advocate for writing things "backwards" from highest level of abstraction to lowest. Maybe there is a good reason SQL has stuck around.