I understand how SQL ties into what I want, but there are a few points you might have overlooked for what I wanted: * Micro-optimizations. The implementations

I understand how SQL ties into what I want, but there are a few points you might have overlooked for what I wanted: * Micro-optimizations. The implementations should be granular, not monolithic like SQL servers (let alone the fact that optimized SQL rarely translates between the implementations, as most optimization commands are not cross platform). * Embeddable DSL, this one is honestly a problem with programming languages in general, but I've yet to see a static programming language which can tell me when my query is malformed at compile time (or hell, even provide decent syntax highlighting). Let alone importable, custom, extensions to SQL, or embedding lazy functions within the data structure. * Intent vs Exact. The ability to describe partial intent, rather than exactly how to organize, the data (e.g. describing the operations expected to be executed across it, rather than the indexes to build). As well as having information available from the compiler about how the data structure is used (so that without the explicit declarations, the intent can still be optimized for). SQL is a fine direction to approach the big picture problem from, but it isn't anywhere near the goal I care about. I'm not interested in dealing with big data. I'm just tired of having to know the difference between arcane implementation names for ordered sequences [1], I want to be able to describe what I want my ordered sequence to do, and let the compiler figure out the best implementation available. [1] http://www.programcreek.com/2013/03/arraylist-vs-linkedlist-vs-vector/ http://www.programcreek.com/2013/03/arraylist-vs-linkedlist-...