Talk:SQL/Archive 2

message: Given link (http://www.dbdebunk.com/ Tutorial-D - A language by C. J. Date and colleagues) don't point to information about Tutorial-D. Please add more precise url or delete it.
:Agreed - I remove the link Turnstep 18:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: "The language has evolved beyond its original purpose to support object-relational database management systems." 
Is this correct?  I read this as though the original purpose of SQL was to support object-relational DBMS's. I thought it was for relationals DBMS's and OODBMS's are a recent addition.
Am I mis-reading it or am I incorrect in my SQL history?
Thanks --Doc0tis 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know.  See this reference on it: ChiMu Corp. - Foundations of Object-Relational Mapping DBBell 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You are right, it should be "...support relational database management systems." I'll change it. Pukkie 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps "The language has evolved beyond its original purpose of supporting relational database management systems to support object-relational database management systems" is closer to the original intent, and contains both intended original pieces of information, if it is rather unwieldy. Perhaps "The language has evolved beyond its original purpose of supporting relational database management systems and now supports object-relational database management systems as well"? J A Treloar 83.146.21.253 18:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've bitten the  bullet and changed it J A Treloar 83.146.21.253 18:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: The article says that one flaw of SQL is "Over-reliance on "NULLs", which some consider a flawed or over-used concept."
I can't seem to find anything in the references here to substantiate that assertion. I've met DBAs and develoeprs who use NULL inappropriately. But the author says that SQL itself is overly reliant on NULL. Can we have an example or a citation that explains how the language itself is reliant on NULL? -- Mikeblas 09:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over-reliance on "NULLs" 

message: Since there are three parts withing the Data Sublanguage, they should be numbered (numbers 1,2,3 at the beginning of the title). I don't know the syntax to do this in a proper way (if there is a proper way). Can someone please do this? I think it would make the structure of the article more clear. --Bernard François 07:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering for DDL, DML and DCL 

message: The page currently claims that "SQuirreL" is a popular alias/pronounciation for SQL. I have never heard it before, but then again, I live in a country where English is not the main language. How can the claim be verified? If it can't, shouldn't it be removed? TroelsArvin 13:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a marketing campaign by Next Generation Software, makers of a software package called "NGSSQuirreL".  "SQuirreL" is not a common pronunciation for SQL in English (unless you have a really, really, really heavy U.S. Southern accent, possibly). SqlPac 03:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SQuirreL 

message: I noted an oddity about "a/an SQL" in the linguistics article clitics, then decided that it was noteworthy here as well.  MaxEnt 04:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added pronunciation notes to lede

message: I thought about revising the paragraph with the Voltaire reference to read:
:One joke about SQL is that "SQL is not structured, nor is it limited to queries, nor is it a language," (which recalls Voltaire's remark that the Holy Roman Empire was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.")
(which is how Gibbon quotes it, IIRC), but it really seems like a kind of pointless reference. Those who recognize it will recognize it without wikipedia's help and those who don't probably don't care to be distracted by links to Voltaire and the Holy Roman Empire while learning about SQL. So it occurred to me to remove it entirely but I'm not sure about that. Anybody else have any ideas on this or feel strongly enough to go ahead one way or the other?
Anyway - either way, its appearance as a displaced afterthought tacked onto the end of the paragraph isn't good.
:It would be awful if someone who was trying to learn something about databases accidentally learned something about Voltaire or the HRE, wouldn't it. Next thing you know, people will become well-rounded. Kaleja 05:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Misplaced Voltaire reference, but to what extent?

message: Why does Codd get designer credit?  He didn't author the language, just the concept of an RDBMS.  If I write a new access language for an RDBMS, is he also the Designer?
Also, how come IBM gets credit, while the actual authors of the paper do not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vonfraginoff (talk • contribs) .
: I agree on both points. --Craig Stuntz 15:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designer credit in the infobox? 

message: I dont think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to link to the late draft available at http://www.wiscorp.com/, as the copyright status of this is not stated, and as a result wikipedia may currently be subverting copyright:
John Vandenberg 07:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting that a link to a copyrighted resource 'subverts' copyright? In that case google, wikipedia and a plethora of other sites have some serious law suits coming their way.--Grimboy 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitemarsh copy of SQL:2003 

message: From the criticism section, I've removed the following bullet points, because either they're not true, or they're opinion, which really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  Saying "update vs insert syntax is confusing" is like saying "Megan is really hot."  The syntax is well documented, well known to many, and like riding a bike.  The other three, however, are simply untrue for the vast majority of SQL databases, and the ones a person is most likely to find themselves using.  I've added reasons why this is untrue in parens after each statement I've removed.
* It does not provide a standard way, or at least a commonly-supported way, to split large commands into multiple smaller ones that reference each other by name. This tends to result in "run-on SQL sentences" and may force one into a deep hierarchical nesting when a graph-like (reference-by-name) approach may be more appropriate and better repetition-factoring.  ( This is the reason views, stored procedures, and functions were created - SQL is logic and data centric, not pysical implementation centric. ) Yes, but one needs special previlages to do this, and often such a needs is a one-query use rather than something that needs to muck up the permanent SP list.
* For larger statements, it is often difficult to factor repeated patterns and expressions into one or fewer places to avoid repetition and avoid having to make the same change to different places in a given statement.  ( This is what "User Defined Functions" aka "UDFs" were created to address. )
* The difference between value-to-column assignment in UPDATE and INSERT syntax is puzzling and confusing to many.
* The language cannot easily be extended by programmers or DBAs. Although some variations allow the addition of functions, the functions can only take scalar values and not tables (real or virtual) as arguments. The archaic syntax (above) may be part of the reason for this.  ( This is simply untrue, at least in 2006.  SQL Server, Oracle, and MS Access, the three RDBMS solutions I've used, all provide UDFs ( via VBA with MS Access ) and Stored Procedures ( although Access implements them as macros that fire off a series of independant queries ). ) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DigitalEnthusiast (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing [allegedly] untrue information 

message: Are there any sources for the claim that pronouncing SQL like sequel is "less formal" than pronouncing it like S-Q-L? Claims about formality are difficult to establish neutrally, so it seems dubious, and I have a mind to remove it unless some citation can be provided to back it up. Nohat 03:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is less formal by definition, because the letters read "SQL" not "sequel". People only pronounce it "sequel" because they hear other people pronouncing it that way, and in turn those other people only pronounce it that way because of the history behind the acronym. Otherwise it could just as easily be pronounced "squeal", "squall" or any number of other, better words than "sequel". 24.6.99.30 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JPEG is pronounced "jay-peg" not "J-P-E-G", and there is nothing "informal" about that pronunciation, so this argument seems a little weak. Are there any verifiable, reliable sources that describe the pronunciation "sequel" as "informal" or "less formal"? Nohat 02:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formally 

message: The text below had to be removed.
Different syntax between UPDATE and INSERT is for good reason, if the complainer would take then 15 minutes required to learn.  SQL is one of the simplest computer languages in existance, but as will all languages, some learning is required.
The rest is a rant and original research that has no place in an encyclopedia.  And one of the most absurd example cases I've ever read.  If a person wants to fill two printed pages with complains about "typo finder" queries being difficult, Google Blogger is a much better soapbox than Wikipedia.
DigitalEnthusiast 00:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "original research" / garbage (AGAIN)