Re: Is SQL silly as an RDBMS<->app interface?

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 12:54:55AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> > SQL is only one possible relational query language. It didn't
> > become de facto standard until the mid- to late-80s.
> >
> > It is an outgrowth of SEQEL (Structured English QuEry Language),
> > which was IBM's 1st try at a descriptive query language. DEC
> > had RDML (Relational Data Manipulation Language) to access it's
> > RDBMS. I'm sure that Burroughs, etc, had their own access methods,
> > too.
>
> Of course, in the context of a PostgreSQL list you can't forget QUEL and
> PostQUEL, Ingres and POSTGRES query languages respectively.
>
>

SQL is almost the worst standard I've come across. Its the
computer equivalent of VHS. Its not readable by computer or humans. (Enough
Flaming on to why I think this)

SQL is verbose it often make you repeat your self when its obvious
what you mean.

INSERT INTO a (b,c) SELECT a+4 as b, c*6 as c from a;

SQL has many different ways of writing the same thing for
different purposes. eg
INSERT INTO a (b,c) VALUES (1,2);
UPDATE a set b=1, c=2 WHERE d=3;

Why not

INSERT INTO a set b=1, c=3;

its certainly more readable and consistent.

Parsing is hard work

No Meta Standard (How do you find out the structure of your table using
pure SQL?

Very difficult to operate with Trees and simple hierarchal data.

I could continue. Still its a language we all love to hate.

Peter Childs