zlacker

I seriously wonder if the people who are so adament that sql is flawed have spent as much time using at as they have trying to "fix" it. After 20 years of sequeling I have come to believe that this language is so far ahead of its time that we're only just beginning to see what a proper tooling for it looks like. Azure Data Studio w/Copilot makes starting queries with "select" the most natural thing in the world and this pipe syntax is barbaric in contrast.

>>gfody+(OP)
I think their claim isn't that it's impossible to be efficient in existing SQL but rather that pipe syntax is more natural and approachable to a lot of people?

>>gfody+(OP)
well maybe people dont want to suffer for 20 years

>>gfody+(OP)
I think that engineers and analysts each have very different relationships with SQL.

When I was doing data science, all the other DS folks would be perfectly content to read and write queries that were hundreds of lines long. There were plenty of minor bits to pick, but it was a great lingua franca for describing data processing.

But engineers hate SQL because they generally only need a tiny little subset of the feature to enable transactional data updates. So they write an ORM to do the subset of SQL they need and never get the opportunity to be indoctrinated into the SQuLt

>>gfody+(OP)
I disagree. KQL is much nicer. It reads better having the source first and this also offers autocompletion in the editor.

>>gfody+(OP)
After 10 years of sequeling, I disagree. Maybe I'll feel differently in 10 more years, but I somehow doubt it.

Using an AI model that ate up half the internet to produce an efficient autocomplete is one path... Improving the language is another...