[falcolas]

Somewhat pedantic argument: SQL is kinda dead. Sure, modern databases use upgraded dialects of it, but they are custom to each database and often incompatible with plain SQL. There are even many cases where modern databases don't support even standardized SQL constructs.

The easiest example of where databases and SQL part ways: UPSERT. It doesn't exist in standard SQL.

ref. https://jakewheat.github.io/sql-overview/sql-2016-foundation...

[geysersam]

Many modern products use SQL. Supabase and BigQuery comes to mind, but the examples are basically inumerable.

There are others of course. But I'd rather call SQL challenged (by graphql etc.) than dead.

[paulryanrogers]

SQL has MERGE

[falcolas]

Forest for the trees, my dude.

[paulryanrogers]

Then let me address the forest. Modern DBs offer SQL as an on-ramp for the most common DML and querying. This further entrenches it as a data language and why SQL just won't die.

There are always more proprietary methods where one needs them. That doesn't mean SQL is dying, it means SQL will likely grow to include some of those too.