HTML is indeed bad as a machine generated format -- which is what it is; e.g. <p>, list items and a few other things don't have a close tag, but most things do.
These things (like SQL) make sense if you assume that the input is (a) written manually, and (b) by people who are not expected to do this "professionally". Neither is the case of HTML nor SQL anymore.
(Seriously, SQL was originally marketed to managers with the idea that "it's just plain english so you can do it yourself, and don't need programmers!". You know how well that worked out)
> (Seriously, SQL was originally marketed to managers with the idea that "it's just plain english so you can do it yourself, and don't need programmers!". You know how well that worked out)
Pretty well, actually -- lots of nonprogrammer analysts use SQL for queries, and IME the ones that do consistently are better able to answer questions based on data than the ones that use "friendly" query tools, that inevitably end up being much more limited in practice, and requiring a lot more support from both programmers and DBAs to make the data that is already available accessible through.
Unfortunately, lots of environments prevent direct SQL access to DBs for "security" reasons (as if mutiuser DBMS's didn't have role based access controls as a core feature)
I still think SQL is a needlessly verbose mistake. The same people who can successfully write SQL for queries would have just as easily (or more easily) been able to use some algebraic notation. I am not advocating GUI query builders - I'm advocating a non-natural-language-looking (and hopefully better) language, along the lines of kdb+/q.
If you can properly do inner/outer/cross/asof joins to get to the data you want, the english-like syntax is just a burden - two queries that seem similar in their English more often than not produce completely different results because of SQL's 3-value logic, the way NULLs are joined, and various other things like that.
> I still think SQL is a needlessly verbose mistake. The same people who can successfully write SQL for queries would have just as easily (or more easily) been able to use some algebraic notation.
I don't think that's not true -- there's lots of adults that have anxiety around "maths-like" notations largely as a result of issues with maths education, cultural factors, etc., despite being able to intellectually handle the relevant manipulations -- and lots of those people end up in non-technical business positions that end up having to deal with data. Lots of the non-IT people I've seen using SQL definitely fall into that group, and I don't think they'd be as proficient with a more algebraic syntax like the comprehension syntaxes used in many modern programming languages.
Conversely, the people that can be proficient in those syntaxes almost certainly can be proficient in SQL, though they may complain about its verbosity.
Sure, in a perfect world where the cultural context was different, this wouldn't be necessary. But we don't live in that world.
These things (like SQL) make sense if you assume that the input is (a) written manually, and (b) by people who are not expected to do this "professionally". Neither is the case of HTML nor SQL anymore.
(Seriously, SQL was originally marketed to managers with the idea that "it's just plain english so you can do it yourself, and don't need programmers!". You know how well that worked out)