In the thread about Rich Hickey's talk on simplicity, people bring up the point that Rich suggests to *finally*, learn SQL. The idea is to use declarations to describe your solution, decoupling implementation details.
However, its arguable that SQL itself is hard. For example, programmers can often encounter deeply nested SQL statements. One might say the statement is complex and thus harder to understand. What would help is if the SQL statement could be broken up into composable pieces. Pig/Pig Latin [1], is one such example of this, where programmers write imperative (seems more like functional to me), statements, and you can model your data conceptually via input and output through named bindings and operators. My question is this, is it possible to write composable SQL? Named expressions might help (binding a query to a name that you can reuse in another query), but I feel like they may not be enough. In core.match, queries are declarative, but one can write functions that work on query arguments, thus giving composable queries, is this the right approach? Best, Brent [1] http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=pig%20latin%20sigmod%202008&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fciteseerx.ist.psu.edu%2Fviewdoc%2Fdownload%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.134.9888%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3Dpdf&ei=lWenTquWGqrz0gH7jfW9Dg&usg=AFQjCNGNzB3kdxtWW3r-6q3Ts8CWhYrffg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
