zlacker

Kinda looks like a half-assed version of what PRQL does. Like, if we’re going to have nonstandard sql, let’s just fix a whole bunch of things, not just one or two?

>>Fridge+(OP)
> Like, if we’re going to have nonstandard sql, let’s just fix a whole bunch of things, not just one or two?

I think they intentionally kept themselves away from massive redesign of the languages, which has a good chance of becoming multi decades of frustrating death march. I know a number of such cases from C++ standard proposals and probably the team wanted to avoid it.

>>Fridge+(OP)
This is addressed in the paper -- it's nice to have something deployable in existing SQL languages, and it also doesn't rule out using PRQL

>>Fridge+(OP)
> Kinda looks like a half-assed version of what PRQL does. Like, if we’re going to have nonstandard sql, let’s just fix a whole bunch of things, not just one or two?

To be honest, this feels exactly like the kind of mistake that IPv6 made. It wasn't just "let's extend the IPv4 address space and provide an upgrade path that's as incremental as possible", it was "IPv4 has all these problems, lets solve the address space issue with a completely new address space, and while we're at it lets fix 20 other things!" Meanwhile, over a quarter century later, IPv4 shows no signs of going away any time soon.

I'd much rather have an incremental improvement that solves 90% of my pain points than to reach for some "Let's throw all the old stuff away for this new nirvana!" And I say this as someone that really likes PRQL.

>>hn_thr+mu
You can't "just" extend the IPv4 address space while keeping the compatibility.

>>andrew+7F
Extending src/dst in current IPv4 protocol headers is much easier than adopting a completely new suite.

>>bvrmn+wS
> Extending src/dst in current IPv4 protocol headers is much easier than adopting a completely new suite.

And that's precisely why that was also one of the competing proposals back then, so that tells me that just being easier probably wasn't enough.

You can search for RFC 1475 ("IPv7") and its surrounding history.

>>quecto+jX
Yes I know. And IPv6 win because it's an objectively a superior standard. No politics and all committee garbage of course.