Pavel, I hope you don’t mind that I forward your personal email to the main list.
Thanks for the links. Yes, I am of course aware of the history of it, but I don’t think everyone else is. (I even gave feedback to Erik Meijer before he submitted this proposal to Bill Gates…. and I lost a beer with him because we bet who among the two of us knows XML Schema better — and he did :-). This reinforces the ideas that: 1. the principles of XQuery are orthogonal to XML itself and 2. spelling FROM and SELECT seems to matter to people A LOT. Best regards Dana > On Jun 23, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Pavel Minaev <[email protected]> wrote: > > FWIW, "this language" is actually LINQ: > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397896(v=vs.140).aspx > <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397896(v=vs.140).aspx> > > Which, ironically, came out of an earlier Microsoft project called Cω (and > specifically, the subset of it called X#), which was basically an attempt to > graft a subset of XQuery onto C#: > > https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms974195.aspx > <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms974195.aspx> > > It became LINQ after it dropped ties to XDM and was generalized to operate on > arbitrary CLI object graphs instead. > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:31 PM, daniela florescu <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > One thing that did strike me is the link cited in one of the comments about > this article: > > http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297 > <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297> > > Just look at the examples. > > Does everyone see what I see !? :-) > > Those are just FLWOR expressions, with FOR spelled as FROM and RETURN spelled > as SELECT. > > Can we PLEASE add those as synonyms in the XQuery grammar before you close > XQuery 3.1 !? > > Otherwise we’ll hear for another 100 years that XQuery has nothing to do with > SQL while THIS language > describe in this paper DOES. (sic!) > > It’s dumb, but that’s how it is. > > Pretty please !??? > > Thanks > Dana > > > >> On Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM, daniela florescu <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ihe, >> >> you asked why XQuery is not more popular. >> >> Here is another striking answer to your question: NOBODY KNOWS IT EXISTS. >> >> Just look at this example. >> >> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sql-vs-discrepancy-somil-asthana?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like >> >> <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sql-vs-discrepancy-somil-asthana?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like> >> >> I quote: "Indisputably, there may be people who are working on Non Relational >> Algebra and Non Tuple Relational Calculus, its just that we do not know >> them.” >> >> [[[Can someone just answer this guy, so I don’t have to insult him/her !? >> Because I feel a really strong urge….I’ll try to breathe and do some >> meditation….]]] >> >> In fact, I know that this is not his/her limitation. >> >> It’s our OWN failure to explain to the world what XQuery is, what it does, >> and what is good at. >> >> Best regards >> Dana >> >> >> P.S. And after that, please DON’T ask me why I am SO pissed off at MarkLogic >> who pretend they never ate the garlic, not does >> their mouth smell of garlic….. >> >> They MADE all their money out of the power of XQuery (expressiveness, >> productivity, etc), yet they pretend they’ve never heard of it…. >> >> That’s something that REALLY gets me angry. >> >> And this will come back to bait them on the business side very badly too. >> >> Oracle would have NEVER done the same thing about SQL…..just saying. >> >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk > <http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk> >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
