One more thing the SQL programming language as it currently exists was in
fact designed to allow people who were not programmers by trade or training
to be able to comprehend the system. (Look on Wikipedia you can find a PDF
of the original proposal.)  It is the reason that the syntax took the form
that it did.

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 2:18 AM, Kevin <darkintent / gmail.com> wrote:

> Aren't all programs languages as the program describes a particular problem
> or set of problems?  It seems that saying that a program is not a language
> is a bit of an artificial distinction.  Mathematics is a language.  Ruby or
> C++ are languages that can be used to construct entirely new languages.
>  Even pictures can form the basis of language.  Every program that exists
> possesses the vocabulary to deal with a given problem domain, so why bother
> trying to claim that something like Excel does not have these qualities?
>  Aside from adherence  to useless jargon of course.
>
> As for issues like terseness, it isn't really a virtue at all. That you can
> say or do more with less is not very important if people have a distinct
> bit
> of trouble understanding what is being communicated.  The goal should be
> clarity, not trying to condense everything into the fewest possible
> symbols,
> ultimately to say that you could.
>