Re: Constraints and Functional Dependencies

On Feb 27, 9:26 am, "Tony D" <tonyisyour..._at_netscape.net> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 3:35 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You didn't ask me, but I can tell you what *I* like about SQL:
>
> > select, project, extend, union, aggregate, and especially join! Join
> > is awesome.
>
> > Oh, and constraints.
>
> > Marshall
>
> For a first attempt, SQL was ok, I guess. Who knows what might have
> happened if QUEL had been presented to the standards committee as a
> serious alternative to SQL though ... (Ingres users can, of course,
> try it and find out for themselves ;)

Do you have any references for QUEL for someone who would like to read about the language? If one is interested in learning about functional languages, or OO languages, one has many to choose from, and can see many different approaches being tried, and compare features, etc. For relational languages, there is SQL, and not a lot else. Setl or Nestl? Not altogether algebraic. There's TutD, of course. I am impressed with its semantics, but I can't say I find it compelling. Its relational features are of course very advanced but outside of that it's quite staid. My aspiration is for the advanced relational semantics of TutD combined with some of the goodness of modern functional languages. My expectation, Tony, is that you would be sympathetic for the desire for higher order functions. :-)

In any event, I expect I would enjoy reading about QUEL.

Marshall Received on Tue Feb 27 2007 - 19:29:53 CET