3 ms·

SQL itself doesn't generate any value, relational databases generate value. SQL is just a frontend for them. Anyway, your snark could be applied to _literally a

SQL itself doesn't generate any value, relational databases generate value. SQL is just a frontend for them. Anyway, your snark could be applied to _literally any change_. Are you angry that cars are replacing horses? "Horses generate such incomparable value that there's a steady supply of pro-car posts, like fumes from the vast ocean of their constantly boiling piss". Don't like the cotton gin? "Slave labor generates such incomparable value...". There's not really anything of substance in this kind of comment.

thom 1y ago
If, after 100 years of cars being available, everybody still rode horses and always got where they're going on time, and car people constantly blogged about it, this would be a great analogy.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y ago
  I don't have a choice to use SQL. If I want to speak to a database, there is precisely one language available. Like Javascript on the web for so long.
- throwaway894345 1y ago
  This comment doesn’t make sense. There are 0 popular relational databases that support SQL and a dialect that addresses SQL’s shortcomings.
lawrencejgd 1y ago
I think here applies very well this quote: All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Roman (SQL) ever done for us?
- throwaway894345 1y ago
  Not really. That quote is about who pioneered those innovations, not about who perfected them. No one disputes that SQL was first on the scene, we’re disputing whether it can be improved upon and whether the value derived from relational databases is a product of SQL specifically (hint: it’s not).
woooooo 1y ago
SQL as a query description language absolutely brings its own value. We had a whole period of NoSQL because its difficult to shard SQL out across distributed databases, followed by people figuring out how to make SQL work on distributed databases, because SQL is really useful and people like it.
- artyom 1y ago
  The whole period of NoSQL was particularly sad one. A couple great things emerged from it (Redis etc al) but for the most part it as all smoke and mirrors. The worst was the amount of people wanting to be the next Ed Codd and being nowhere close to his mathematical background.
  - woooooo 1y ago
    I'd call it a necessary phase rather than sad. People needed scalability fast, key-value stores are natural to shard, so they did that first and then we got better distributed DBs later. Even Prime Google was on bigtable for over a decade before spanner.

thom 1y ago

If, after 100 years of cars being available, everybody still rode horses and always got where they're going on time, and car people constantly blogged about it, this would be a great analogy.

3eb7988a1663 1y ago
I don't have a choice to use SQL. If I want to speak to a database, there is precisely one language available. Like Javascript on the web for so long.
throwaway894345 1y ago
This comment doesn’t make sense. There are 0 popular relational databases that support SQL and a dialect that addresses SQL’s shortcomings.

lawrencejgd 1y ago

I think here applies very well this quote: All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Roman (SQL) ever done for us?

throwaway894345 1y ago
Not really. That quote is about who pioneered those innovations, not about who perfected them. No one disputes that SQL was first on the scene, we’re disputing whether it can be improved upon and whether the value derived from relational databases is a product of SQL specifically (hint: it’s not).

woooooo 1y ago

SQL as a query description language absolutely brings its own value. We had a whole period of NoSQL because its difficult to shard SQL out across distributed databases, followed by people figuring out how to make SQL work on distributed databases, because SQL is really useful and people like it.

artyom 1y ago
The whole period of NoSQL was particularly sad one. A couple great things emerged from it (Redis etc al) but for the most part it as all smoke and mirrors. The worst was the amount of people wanting to be the next Ed Codd and being nowhere close to his mathematical background.
- woooooo 1y ago
  I'd call it a necessary phase rather than sad. People needed scalability fast, key-value stores are natural to shard, so they did that first and then we got better distributed DBs later. Even Prime Google was on bigtable for over a decade before spanner.