[suttontom]

I'm amazed you think that instead of using an LLM that someone will go buy a book and spend a week learning something that, judging by the fact that they last used it 30 years ago, likely won't be relevant for them soon.

[vintermann]

It's not only that I rarely use it, it's also that it's ugly. It's Relational Cobol. It's as loveable as Oracle. The vendor specific dialects don't even agree on how to do recursive queries do they?

Unfortunately I am very good at forgetting things I resented having to learn, and SQL is definitively one of them.

[nevertoolate]

So you don’t understand what you generate with ai and think that it will be a solution for a problem you can only solve using sql.

[vintermann]

No, it's easy enough to understand the query once the AI has generated it. I have looked up how to do it many times after all.

[nevertoolate]

Yes

[jazzyjackson]

If the AI's query pulled what I intended to pull, why should I care to understand the SQL any more than I should understand the Query Plan or the Machine Code?

[marshray]

There's nothing wrong with using SQL only when you know in advance exactly which records you wish to query.

But if you ever need to query unknown data, then probably you should learn SQL a bit deeper.

[alternatex]

As with regex, querying is about not getting what you don't want as much as it is about getting what you want. And the former of the two is much more difficult to verify.