I disagree with the idea that a good SQL alternative would just be a superset of SQL as you propose.
That has already been done numerous times, the principal manifestations being each SQL DBMS that has its own small or large differences in syntax and features from each other. SQL is already a very complex language due in part to most of its features each having their own custom syntax, often several variations per feature to boot, as well as lots of arbitrary limitations or specified inconsistent behaviors, a lot of these for keeping backwards compatibility with various old or vendor-specific ways of doing things. What a good SQL alternative would actually be is a much more self-consistent and less redundant than SQL. It would still have all of SQL's expressive power and features so that any SQL code can be translated to it, including automatically, without too much circumlocution. That is how you would simplify the transition and re-utilization of existing code. The good alternative would actually be easier for a DBMS to implement also without losing any power. -- Darren Duncan On 2015-06-17 11:52 PM, ajm at zator.com wrote: > Indeed, I'm agree with Darren, and continuing its thought, perhaps that > hypothetical new language would be a clean extensi?n of SQL in the same way > that C++ was respect to C, simplifying the transition and reutilization of > legacy code. > > Cheers. > > -- > A.J. Millan >> >> ---- Mensaje original ---- >> De: <david at andl.org> >> Para: "'General Discussion of SQLite Database'"<sqlite-users at >> mailinglistssqlite.org> >> Fecha: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:50:40 +1000 >> Asunto: Re: [sqlite] Mozilla wiki 'avoid SQLite' >> >> The question for now is: does a new database programming language have a >> place?
