On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:03 PM, daniela florescu <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ihe, > > based on my own personal experience, I could give you the long version of > the answer and the short version > of the answer. > > I’ll start with the short one. > > And I will start with the NON-reason for the non-sucess of Xquery. > > 1. No, it’s not because it’s functional. > > Even though, because it’s functional, it will be restricted to be used > only by people with CS degrees, and not by > random Joes and Janes who write web sites. The way it is designed it is > intended to make a population of educated programmers > ETREMELY efficient, and NOT to increase the total number of developers to > hundreds of millions. > > When being reproached this fact in the past, my answer was always the > same: building a database application should not be for the uneducated. > It’s like building a 30 story building, you don’t do that without a > architect ad a structural engineer. > E.g. if you want to eradicate a grave neurological disease, you don’t > lower the bar to allow anyone from the street to perform a neurosurgery, > you just make the existing neurosurgents more productive. > > And BTW, XQuery (like any programming language in 2015) should not be > written by hand, by mostly automatically generated by tools, so at the end, > who cares if it is functional or not. > > 2. It’s not because academia doesn’t pay attention. > > That’s not true. Almost every database class I know finishes with teaching > the students XQuery. I taught full XML/XQuery classes myself in both > Stanford and Berkeley > and the students loved it. It is true that most database professors > themselves don’t understand XML and XQuery, but that’s another story…… > > I'm not sure about that. I know Harvard does but that is part of a web programming course. http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-830-database-systems-fall-2010/readings/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/civil-and-environmental-engineering/1-264j-database-internet-and-systems-integration-technologies-fall-2013/lecture-notes-exercises/ MIT doesn't, neither does either of the universities I went to. > ============== > > Here would be my FIRST real reason: > > 1. XQuery CANNOT be more successful then the problem that it tries to > solve, which is XML processing. > > XML itself is not successful.Period. > There is no money in XML. Period. > > There is a USE CASE in XML as documents, but not enough money in this > market. > > And XML as data is a total flop. XML is hated and avoided by the > developers like hell. And that, for good reasons. > > What are they. Alot of the ones I have read aren't true and seem to be based on a lack of knowledge about XML > So, why wouldn’t they use XQuery, when they don’t want to see the face of > XML in the first place !? > > So, you see, it would be unreasonable to expect that XQuery is successful > in places where XML is hated. > > E.G. MarkLogic after 14 years of existence barely managed to pass 100M > revenue. DatasTax after 3 years > of existence is at more then 300M revenue (and less investment from VCs). > > It’s … XML vs. JSON. Documents vs. data. > > Y'see I reckon that if JSON was deployed in many of the domains where XML is, it too would be hated. > So…. I think it is simply a question of …. there is no market for XML > ……(aka no enough MONEY in the market). > > > (there are plenty of other reasons, of course, but I think this is the > main one..) > > ============= > > The only way for the ideas behind XQuery to become successful is trough > JSON and a language like JSONiq. > > Because there IS enough money in the market behind JSON… > > That’s my short answer. > > I can send you the longer answer, maybe later. > > Eagerly awaited.
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
