On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 04:46:51AM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
> On 3/21/07, Chad Perrin <perrin / apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 01:01:14AM +0900, John Joyce wrote:
> >> Ok, if you say so. Let's call it a describing language, but
> >> operations like AUTO INCREMENT seem an awful lot like programming. I
> >> guess we have to say Ruby is not a programming language either. It is
> >> a scripting language.
> >> hmm...
> >> many sources do describe (no pun intended) SQL as a declarative
> >> programming language. It isn't 'Turing complete' because it can't
> >> create an infinite loop. Big deal.
> >> That's academic nitpicking.
> >If you want a "real programming language" version of SQL, just use
> >PL/SQL with Oracle.  Ew.
> 
> Which is a better language than most people think. What's interesting
> is that it isn't a version of SQL, but a version of Ada (or Modula 2?)
> with SQL cursors as a native data type and built-in recognition of
> existing database data types and SQL statements. It's closer to Pro*C
> (C/C++ with embedded SQL) than a programming language version of SQL.
> 
> It's still saddled with the limitations of SQL.

That's really the major problem I have with it -- the limitations of
SQL, thanks to including SQL.

Another way of looking at it is that it's just SQL with Ada-inspired
sugar.  While I haven't until now run across the description of it from
the other direction (that it's Ada with embedded SQL), I still think
that calling it SQL with Ada-inspired sugar better encompasses my
distaste for it.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"The ability to quote is a serviceable
substitute for wit." - W. Somerset Maugham