4 ms·

> It's written that way because it stems from relational algebra, in which the projection is typically (always?) written first. Okay, so what? We're not oblig

> It's written that way because it stems from relational algebra, in which the projection is typically (always?) written first. Okay, so what? We're not obligated to emulate the notational norms of our source material, and it is often bad to do so when context changes.

sgarland 1y ago
I was explaining why it is the way that it is. If you'd like your own version of a parser, here's Postgres' [0]. Personally, I really like SQL's syntax and find that it makes sense when reading it. [0]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/tree/master/src/backend/parser https://github.com/postgres/postgres/tree/master/src/backend...
- jagged-chisel 1y ago
  There was not argument about how much sense it makes. There was an argument for improving readability by placing the table names first. Lots of people “like” things because they are familiar with them. And that’s a fine enough reason. But if you step out of your zone of familiarity, can you find improvements? Are you willing to forgo any prejudice you may possess to evaluate other suggestions? Just a little willingness to see another perspective is all anyone asks.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > If you'd like your own version of a parser, here's Postgres' [0]. Funnily enough, if you pull up a version of Postgres' parser prior to the 1995 release, you'll find that it puts the relation first.
- kerkeslager 1y ago
  > I was explaining why it is the way that it is. No one was confused what you were doing. I'm saying the historical reason for why it is the way it is, doesn't matter. I would hope we design our languages to be maximally clear and useful, not to be maximally full of historical cruft. There's no accounting for taste, so you're welcome to like whatever you like, but I don't think you liking a backward syntax is particularly persuasive. It sounds more like you're just used to it than that you see any actual benefits to it.

sgarland 1y ago

I was explaining why it is the way that it is. If you'd like your own version of a parser, here's Postgres' [0]. Personally, I really like SQL's syntax and find that it makes sense when reading it. [0]: https://github.com/postgres/postgres/tree/master/src/backend/parser https://github.com/postgres/postgres/tree/master/src/backend...

jagged-chisel 1y ago
There was not argument about how much sense it makes. There was an argument for improving readability by placing the table names first. Lots of people “like” things because they are familiar with them. And that’s a fine enough reason. But if you step out of your zone of familiarity, can you find improvements? Are you willing to forgo any prejudice you may possess to evaluate other suggestions? Just a little willingness to see another perspective is all anyone asks.
9rx 1y ago
> If you'd like your own version of a parser, here's Postgres' [0]. Funnily enough, if you pull up a version of Postgres' parser prior to the 1995 release, you'll find that it puts the relation first.
kerkeslager 1y ago
> I was explaining why it is the way that it is. No one was confused what you were doing. I'm saying the historical reason for why it is the way it is, doesn't matter. I would hope we design our languages to be maximally clear and useful, not to be maximally full of historical cruft. There's no accounting for taste, so you're welcome to like whatever you like, but I don't think you liking a backward syntax is particularly persuasive. It sounds more like you're just used to it than that you see any actual benefits to it.