Let me amplify my question. It should be clear from the recent linkedin discussion that for a large section of people using JSON syntax matters. So they will not understand your assertion that XQuery is an extension of SQL. Any similarities in the semantics and/or capabilities of the language are clouded by the "unfamiliar syntax".
It should also be clear that alot of the same people are happy to accept a partial even half baked solution so long as it is coated in familiar syntax and are wllling to dive in and use such products without assesing their capabilities. If you have forgotten this recall the person who was trumpeting an SQL implementation over JSON that could not do summation. Couchbase and co are tapping into the fact that there is a significant market for whom functionality and capability are far less important than appealing to their sense of familiarity. You could say the argument for these products is the 80/20 rule although how you ever get to add up to 80% with a product that can't do summations defeats me. Whatever the case it should be very clear that many people would rather use a halfbaked SQL implementation than use XQuery. With mulesoft it is different because XQuery should be familiar to them. That's why I say ask them. You may well get a different response. On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Ihe Onwuka <[email protected]> wrote: > Why don't you ask them? > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:07 PM, daniela florescu <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> https://developer.mulesoft.com/docs/display/37M1/Overview >> >> Why do people have so much fun reinventing stuff that was DEFINITELY not >> fun to specify in the first >> place !??? >> >> I will never understand how those guys think…. >> >> Dana >> _______________________________________________ >> [email protected] >> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
