Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by brudgers on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @08:53AM
(#14245925)
Exposing data structures in a human readable form was probably a necessity because SQL slotted itself into a space where COBOL lived...and one of the features of COBOL was its intent to create readable data processing programs. Like SQL, COBOL was generally a very reasonable alternative when practical engineering and business considerations were all on the table (e.g. mature well documented tools and the availability of employable candidates).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by mkesper on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @09:20AM
(#14246089)
Before databases you had only flat files or VSAM (and before that, ISAM) for your data. Good luck debugging your data in a VSAM cluster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VSAM
Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by brudgers on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @10:14AM
(#14246461)
My apologies for not being clear. By "data structures" I meant data structures and by implication that COBOL provided an abstraction over bytes in memory or on persistent storage media. The premise of my statement is that SQL is also an abstraction over bytes in memory or on persistent storage media in similar use cases.
Re:SQL is 43 years old – Here’s why we still use it today
by SmellTheGlove on Tuesday May 02, 2017 @10:01AM
(#14246356)
Thankfully, SAS handles VSAM reasonably well. Don't ask me why I know this, or why I need to continue to know this.