|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
>> (Anybody have any clue how the relational calculus is different from
>> the relational algebra??)
>
> Yes.
Care to explain?
>> SQL is basically the relational algebra with COBOL-style syntax.
>
> Actually, it's relational calculus with COBOL-style syntax. ;-)
You know, until I read COBOL, I had no idea SQL looked like COBOL. (OMG,
I think we have reached a tautology here!) But having seen COBOL, SQL
really does seem overly wordy and silly... heh. :-D
>> All of this makes me wonder... What would happen if somebody designed
>> a language which was exactly like Haskell, but had syntax like Pascal
>> or something? What if it didn't use terms like "monad" and "functor"
>> and "existential quantification", but used something more
>> concrete-sounding?
>
> Go for it. Then write a parser to translate it into Haskell.
Heh. Assuming I don't give it a type system which exceeds Haskell's
expressive power. >:-D
But an interpretter should definitely be possible. Especially since it's
easier to parse... ;-) I might even build a debuggar.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |