3 ms·
> SQL doesn't require you to create up-front static types You realize that DML/DQL is only one part of SQL? It also includes a DDL. All the types are right in
by happy_dino 13y ago
> SQL doesn't require you to create up-front static types
You realize that DML/DQL is only one part of SQL? It also includes a DDL. All the types are right in there.
- stonemetal 13y agoTry to finish the sentence before deciding it is inaccurate. > resultsets of queries that are include joins. I have never had to use DDL to declare the types of the results of a join. What database do you use where you do?
- happy_dino 13y agoThis is because the types can be derived from the ones declared, not because joins are suddenly “dynamically” typed. Static types != manifest types.
- djpowell 13y agoDDL is boring. DML/DQL are the power of SQL and the relational model. They are what enables ad-hoc querying that the schema designer had never considered. As soon as you do anything other than select * the composite types defined in DDL aren't as important. I was suggesting that the immutable part of FP (which is most of it) has a lot of similarity with relational querying, which is very successful in the real world.