[xquery-talk] SQL vs. XQuery (aka FOR vs FROM and RETURn vs. SELECT)

[daniela florescu]

Pavel, I hope you don’t mind that I forward your personal  email to the main list.

Thanks for the links. 

Yes, I am of course aware of the history of it, but I don’t think everyone else is.

(I even gave feedback to Erik Meijer before he submitted this proposal to Bill Gates…. and I lost
a beer with him because we bet who among the two of us knows XML Schema better — and he did :-).

This reinforces the ideas that:

1. the principles of XQuery are orthogonal to XML itself and

2. spelling FROM and SELECT seems to matter to people A LOT.

Best regards
Dana


> On Jun 23, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Pavel Minaev <int19h at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> FWIW, "this language" is actually LINQ:
> 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397896(v=vs.140).aspx <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb397896(v=vs.140).aspx>
> 
> Which, ironically, came out of an earlier Microsoft project called Cω (and specifically, the subset of it called X#), which was basically an attempt to graft a subset of XQuery onto C#:
> 
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms974195.aspx <https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms974195.aspx>
> 
> It became LINQ after it dropped ties to XDM and was generalized to operate on arbitrary CLI object graphs instead.
> 
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:31 PM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com <mailto:dflorescu at me.com>> wrote:
> One thing that did strike me is the link cited in one of the comments about this article:
> 
> http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297 <http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1961297>
> 
> Just look at the examples.
> 
> Does everyone see what I see !? :-)
> 
> Those are just FLWOR expressions, with FOR spelled as FROM and RETURN spelled
> as SELECT.
> 
> Can we PLEASE add those as synonyms in the XQuery grammar before you close XQuery 3.1  !?
> 
> Otherwise we’ll hear for another 100 years that XQuery has nothing to do with SQL while THIS language
> describe in this paper DOES. (sic!)
> 
> It’s dumb, but that’s how it is.
> 
> Pretty please !???
> 
> Thanks
> Dana
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com <mailto:dflorescu at me.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Ihe,
>> 
>> you asked why XQuery is not more popular.
>> 
>> Here is another striking answer to your question: NOBODY KNOWS IT EXISTS.
>> 
>> Just look at this example.
>> 
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sql-vs-discrepancy-somil-asthana?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like <https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/sql-vs-discrepancy-somil-asthana?trk=hp-feed-article-title-like>
>> 
>> I quote: "Indisputably, there may be people who are working on Non Relational
>>  Algebra and Non Tuple Relational Calculus, its just that we do not know them.”
>> 
>> [[[Can someone just answer this guy, so I don’t have to insult him/her !?
>> Because I feel a really strong urge….I’ll try to breathe and do some meditation….]]]
>> 
>> In fact, I know that this is not his/her limitation.
>> 
>> It’s our OWN failure to explain to the world what XQuery is, what it does, and what is good at.
>> 
>> Best regards
>> Dana
>> 
>> 
>> P.S. And after that, please DON’T ask me why I am SO pissed off at MarkLogic who pretend they never ate the garlic, not does
>> their mouth smell of garlic…..
>> 
>> They MADE all their money out of the power of XQuery  (expressiveness, productivity, etc), yet they pretend they’ve never heard of it….
>> 
>> That’s something that REALLY gets me angry.
>> 
>> And this will come back to bait them on the business side very badly too. 
>> 
>> Oracle would have NEVER done the same thing about SQL…..just saying.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk at x-query.com <mailto:talk at x-query.com>
> http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk <http://x-query.com/mailman/listinfo/talk>
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://x-query.com/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150623/09d60c90/attachment.html>