[mufufu]

> It should be possible for an amateur to quickly write an SQL validator as a starting project

I think the point he is trying to make here is the same as the post was making concerning orthogonality. Having a smaller set of special syntax, and therefore an easier validator to write, means easier queries to write for the user. I don’t think he was implying that everyone who makes use of the language should know how to write a lexer for it.

> The syntax is just not the interesting part. Any syntax that meets those criteria would do.

I have to disagree with this. If this was the case we would still be programming everything in BASIC or C because they’re just another imperative programming language and it gets the job done. Having sugar syntax, a consistent language, etc.. all makes it easier for a programmer (or data analyst) to get the job he needs quicker (and therefore reduces cost), makes a program easier to maintain, and so on.

[sanderjd]

The syntax is not the interesting part for programming languages either. Programming languages now have better semantics - things like runtimes, concurrency, data encapsulation, etc. - in addition to better syntax. SQL is not a programming language, its semantics boil down to the relational model. Don't get me wrong, there is room for improvement in the syntax, I have plenty of gripes with it, I just don't agree that it is a fundamental problem. It's already super useful as it is.

[Risord]

Indeed semantics is what matter but I think for example lack of composability is semantic problem too.

<snarky> Ability to manage persistency and correctness of SQL engines is very usefull while language interface not so much. </snarky>