[hughesjj]

Sql is one of the coolest languages ever developed and I hate the resistance to it. It's basically applying relations over (multi)sets, and set theory can be at the root of basically all today's mathematics if you squint or translate hard enough. So much of programming is taking data from one place and putting it in another, having a consistent language to do so such as ANSI sql is so powerful.

Until cloud formation/terraform/infrastructure as code came around it was basically the only declarative language that most developers would come across (unless you count markup), and I think that was the cause of some of the resistance.

[lelanthran]

> Sql is one of the coolest languages ever developed and I hate the resistance to it.

I agree, but the resistance, I feel, is due to really poor tooling.

No compilation step (so, how do you know you have an error? You run it). Run your query on test which has mostly live data, everything works, run it on production and suddenly that one query has abysmal performance and it's hard to determine that it's because of some missing index. The query explainer or describer is often understood by devs because they spend so little time with SQL itself, due to using ORMs.

There's no debugger. Hell, sometimes even the printf-equivalent is a poor substitute. You cannot step through a large SP, you cannot put in breakpoints, you cannot add watches, etc.

Unfortunately, the "tooling" for most devs are ORMs, which makes SQL even more opaque and more hard to debug, and reduces the pressure for popular DBMSs to develop decent debuggers.

I feel that if teams/projects insisted on "Only parameterized SQL queries in the program is allowed", SQL would actually get less maligned as people got more familiar with it.

[Mikhail_Edoshin]

Declarative languages are abound, except maybe not as sophisticated as SQL. Any math expression is declarative. A regular expression is declarative. Grammars are declarative. But although the declarative way is inherently simpler, it is also inherently limited. If it the only way, sooner or later users will bump into these limitations.

When a developer first get that vision of a beatiful declarative notation to handle his case, he often tries to make it the only way to use the system. But a more flexible way to design a system is to always allow to supply an imperative handler (a callback, a subclass, an interface, etc.), and then present the elegant declarative option as such a handler, built-in, but replaceable, one of many.

With SQL the situation is more complex; it is not the elegance of a declarative notation, but also the complexity of the underlying task. The idea was to give a kind of relational calculus plus make it distributed, atomic, durable, and, most of all, multi-user with an illusion that each user is the sole client of the system. It is not only that the user is not interested in setting record locks manually: even if he is, there must be no such option. It is very much like an operating system running multiple programs where each program runs under an illusion it is the only one. I would say that it is the requirement of independent concurrency that made SQL what it is.

But although this is an important use case, it is not the only one. Sometimes there is no concurrency or all of it is under control. E.g. it can be a multi-threaded program that works with a complex model of something. Can we model that something relationally? I would love to. But in our case there is no independent concurrency and no ad-hoc queries. Given that simplification, do we still need SQL? Could we maybe arrange the same relational operations differently? Maybe imperatively? Could we gain something as a result? At the very least these are interesting questions.

[digdugdirk]

That seems super interesting. Do you have any book/article recommendations that dive into this mindset?

[setr]

The set theory? Look up relational algebra. These discussions get murky because people always conflate SQL the language with the underlying relational algebra, so it’s near impossible to criticize the language alone — like exactly in this case. It also gets conflated with the RDBMS engine, which doesn’t help either.

The article specifically calls out issues with the language, and specifically seeks to maintain the algebra with a different language… and somehow we’re back to talking about how sql is great because the algebra is great.

Codd created something beautiful; ibm created something significantly less so.

[bob1029]

> Codd created something beautiful; ibm created something significantly less so.

IBM made it practical to apply these beautiful ideas to boring-ass business.

Without IBM, we wouldn't be talking about SQL today.