[zabzonk]

> We wanted the language to be simple enough that ordinary people could ‘‘walk up and use it’’ with a minimum of training.

In that case it has been an abject failure. I have been using SQL since the mid 1980s (so pretty much since the start of its widespread adoption) and I have never met "ordinary people" (by which I assume intelligent business-oriented professionals) who could (or wanted to) cope with it.

I like it, but the idea of sets does not come naturally to most people (me included). But I once worked with a programmer who had never been exposed to SQL - I leant him an introductory book on it and he came in the next day and said "Oh, of course, it's all sets, isn't it?" and then went on to write some of the most fiendish queries I have ever seen.

[papito]

I don't think this is disputed that the original goal of SQL was a flop. The designers grossly underestimated the technical chops of a layman. However, I would argue that us tech people did benefit from that original goal of simplicity. I mean, SELECT first, last FROM employees WHERE id = 10 is not too bad at all. Kind of elegant, no?

If SQL was designed "by engineers for engineers", you would be using esoteric Git commands just to blow off steam.

[zabzonk]

> Kind of elegant, no?

Oh, I agree, which I said "I like it", and compared to things like CODASYL it was and is shining sanity.