On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 15:11:55 -0700 Darko Volaric <lists at darko.org> wrote:
> Are you seriously saying that that SQL syntax is friendly? How can you > defend SQL syntax other than on grounds of history or > standardization? The first and best defense of SQL is that it has at least some basis in the relational model. It expresses relational project, select, join, union, and intersection directly, and with contortions relational division. Like Algol-60, it's an improvement on its predecessors and on many of its successors. > If you're more comfortable and familiar with JSON > the yes it is easier and you can avoid an unnecessary conversion step. I wonder how many applications you've profiled for which SQL generation and parsing were a significant share of the run time. Usually once the data are of any appreciable size I/O becomes the most important component. That's why modern DBMSs have so many features to minimize I/O. While you're working on your new syntax, I hope you'll keep Richard's query in mind. SQL, verbose as it is, is pretty clean compared to most ORM syntaxes I've seen. A syntax that can express his query more succinctly and is also "better" along the lines you describe would be an achievement. --jkl
