Re: Unknown SQL

"Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
thunder crashed, "Carl Rosenberger" <carl_at_db4o.com> laughed madly, then wrote:

>Todd Gillespie wrote:
>> > > It's amazing, but SQL remains a terrific secret to about 90% of the
>> > > developers out there, ...
>> : interesting point. but why is that so? is there no need for SQL aware
>> : coders? are they afraid of SQL's "complexity" - or let me rephrase
>> : that: do they have problems with a way of thinking different from the
>> : procedural view of programming languages? is it too difficult? are
>> : there only bad tutorials? ...
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> In simplest terms, it's another case of people refusing to think in more
>> than one fashion.
>
>Yes, this is probably very true. Thinking in SQL compares to thinking in
>objects like eating with a spoon compares to eating with chopsticks.
>

I don't really find that to be true.

SQL is just another language. If you're working with databases in whatever form, you already know the underlying language.

Thinking of a bookstore for instance:

"The set of all books"

"The set of all books whose names include the words 'Harry Potter'"

"The set of all books whose subject includes 'Harry Potter'"

You're going to have to understand these kind of concepts in order to work with any form of database. And if you understand these concepts, learning SQL isn't going to be more difficult than picking up any other new programming language.

It's got a fairly small vocabulary.

>Typically we do program with objects, though. Every additional "fashion" or
>flavour of thinking complicates our business.
>

--
Joe Cosby
http://joecosby.home.mindspring.com
 
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
  And Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
  And Eternity in an hour
- William Blake
 
 
Sig by Kookie Jar 5.98d http://go.to/generalfrenetics/