bruce@momjian.us (Bruce Momjian) writes:
> Peter Kovacs wrote:
>> I just wanted to give my cheers for DISTINCT ON. It is a great
>> feature, I've just found a really good use for it. I am just wondering
>> why it didn't make it into the standards.
>>
>> On a slightly unrelated note, I had the opportunity to work with EQUEL
>> for a short period of time some 15 years ago before I started getting
>> famililar with SQL. I clearly remember the disappointment/surprise I
>> felt as I was struggling to translate some of the constructs I used
>> with EQUEL into SQL. At that time, I thought that (the by then
>> defunct) EQUEL was much more
>> expressive/intuitive/flexible/easier-to-use than SQL. I've been
>> wondering ever since why the worse so often gets the upper-hand over
>> the better. (I am obviously having a hard time "growing-up" :-) )
>
> As a former EQUEL user myself I had the same reaction to SQL. I think
> EQUEL and SQL both have strengths, but I think SQL subqueries and the
> cleaner handling of group aggregates makes SQL more useful in a variety
> of ways.
If EQUEL had continued to evolve, might it not have improved in these
ways?
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "linuxfinances.info")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lisp.html
Ubuntu is an ancient African word, meaning "can't configure Debian"
