>> (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