On Sep 16, 2021, at 7:31 , Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2021 at 7:31 PM FWS Neil <n...@fairwindsoft.com> wrote: >> On Sep 15, 2021, at 2:44 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think you ought to recognize that many people on this list make >>> money directly from managing that complexity :-). >> >> I did not intend to disparage anyone. People, including myself, make money >> when they provide value and there is certainly value here. >> >> But, I am not sure I understand your inference. Are you saying (and I am >> not implying you are) that PostgreSQL does not progress in line with the >> original SQL goals of simplifying data access because people are making >> money off of the current complexity? > > Not at all. I'm saying that this mailing list is stuffed with people > that work on and with the database, and SQL is in many cases > (including mine) a passion. Postgres is a technical marvel so that > we make money by utilizing it effectively, and rendering, er, > constructive feedback to its stewards so that it may improve and we > may all become more efficient. > > Points made upthread suggesting SQL is bad due to being based on sets > were ironic IMO. SQL is successful and enduring precisely because you > can direct operations by describing data relationships rather than > implement specific operations by hand. Fluency in that technique > leads to solution achievement that other technologies cannot approach. > It rewards artistry and creativity, which I guess rubs some people the > wrong way since it does not align to factory development strategies. > > No offense taken; I enjoy the debate; this thread is an indulgence, > being a bit of time off from capricious C suite executives, agile > methodology zealots, etc. So fire away.
Missing my original point here. The set theory is the _point_. SQL is a gargantuan distraction from using it efficiently. Imagine if COBOL was the only widely-available programming language with functions. You might use it, because functions are really great abstraction for programming. That wouldn’t mean that COBOL wasn’t an utterly awful language. SQL is like that, only for relations, sets and logic.
