4 ms·
I remain unimpressed by KQL. Comparing SQL to KQL is approximately like comparing Java to C#. Yeah it's better in many ways, but at the end of the day it doesn'
by default-kramer 2y ago
I remain unimpressed by KQL. Comparing SQL to KQL is approximately like comparing Java to C#. Yeah it's better in many ways, but at the end of the day it doesn't make a huge difference. I want to go from Java to Lisp.
Consider how many of these complaints are equally valid against KQL: https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/against-sql/ https://www.scattered-thoughts.net/writing/against-sql/
- bradford 2y agoTotally disagree, I've used KQL for about 10 years now, and SQL for 20. Given the choice, I'll always prefer KQL. Sorry, I don't have time for a thorough rebuttal of all the topics mentioned in the link you provided, but if I had to bring up a few counterpoints: 1. (Can't be expressed) KQLs dynamic datatype handles JSON much better than SQLs language additions. 2. (variables/Fragile structure/Functions) KQL fixes many of the orthogonality issues in SQL. (Specifically: both variable assignments and function parameters can accept scalar and tabular values in a similiar way, where-as SQL uses different syntax for each) (disclaimer, msft employee)
- beoberha 2y agoEh, I don’t need Lisp. I need to do my job. KQL allows me to write queries intuitively and others to easily understand what I’m doing. The summarize operator is also a game changer. I use something like “ | summarize count() by bin(TIMESTAMP, 1h) “ multiple times daily. Getting the same result in SQL is disgusting.