> How can you defend SQL syntax other than on grounds of history or standardization?
Short answer: QWERTY. Long answer: IBM mainframe DOS -> Z/OS. A 1960's o/s that is still supported by the inner workings of its most modern o/s. There's is nothing wrong with supporting the past. Sometimes things we don't like have long histories that we may not like. But like it, or not, those histories created a standard and got us to where we are today. Why forget the past? We can enhance and embrace at the same time. I do all kinds of --stuff-- using Ruby and PHP. And the --stuff-- gets translated to SQL and sent to my favorite db, Sqlite. Why? Because SQL works, and so much understands it. It has a legacy and an understanding and it is documented and it is well vetted and and and and. My 1 cent. On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Etienne Charland <mysteryx93 at hotmail.com> wrote: > What you're looking for seems similar to LINQ to SQLite > (System.Data.SQLite). When programming in C#, I don't code any SQL. I use a > strongly-typed interface that then generates SQL queries in the background. > > Besides LINQ, you could create another interface that suits your needs, > and that can then communicate with any database since all databases > recognize SQL. Nothing needs to change on SQLite's side. > > My 2 cents. > > > Etienne > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users >
