On 01/05/18 08:50, Andy Leighton wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 21:56:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
 wrote:
>> On 30/04/18 20:57, Andy Leighton wrote:
>>> How does SQL map into machine code?
>>
>> Pretty badly.:-)
>>
>>
>>> How does Prolog? Erlang? Haskell?
>>
>> Even worse....?
>>
>> Probably why they have never been used for anything important that I can
>> think of...
>
> Really?
>
> SQL is used extensively.

My last sentence wasn't reffering to SQL


Erlang was/is widely used in telephone exchanges
> and mobile networks. I will admit that Prolog and Haskell haven't got wide
> usage. But TBH many of the languages Gareth listed do not have wide
> usage these days.
>
*shrug* my point exactly. For all their theoretical elegance, the
language which most easily (if not 1:1) maps onto the underlying machine
architecture, rather than mapping to and abstract computational concept
that then has to be shoe-horned into assembler, is teh one that is the
most popular. I have cionsiderable exposure to (My)SQL (alhtough not
Oracle or any other heavyweight commercial implementation) and even here
my experience proves my point. Anything more than the simplest of
queries leads to performance issues which are solved by ignoring the
elegant flexible features of the language and hard coding exactly what
you are trying to do with the data ine.g.  C.

And it better had be C, and not PHP, because the memory management of
that is such that it collapses in a heap (sic!) when handling large SQL
data objects.

C sits nicely between  the overwight syntax and non portability of
assembler, and teh ineffeicient and unintelligent langeuages of computer
scientists, who instead of respecting the hardware upon which their code
nust run, as COBOL, FORTRAN and B/BCPL/C did, instead ignore it in their
search for symmetry elegance and presumably geek status, whils what they
have implemented rumbles along overblown and overweight and bug filled.



--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05