I think you're discounting network-effects and historical inertia.
Even things which are functionally very simple to implement won't necessarily catch on, ex: "If you could make keyboard layouts more practical than QWERTY, then you would have done so by now."
I mean, maybe I am, maybe I'm not. How many other languages from the '70s haven't been replaced in a domain where they should have been?
And, I mean, maybe your example isn't really the best example you could have given. Name a layout quote-unquote more practical than QWERTY that should have caught on but didn't. Dvorak? No faster. Colmac? Nah. Any, y'know, studied benefits? None I can find, at least not with a P-value worth mentioning.
I'm not saying SQL is the definitive end of database query languages, of course, because that would be silly. There is, almost certainly, a more objective truth. What I'm saying is good luck finding it; It's only semi-cynically that I say I wish you luck finding a better language than SQL. I honestly, with all my heart, wish that SQL could be replaced with something better, because I hate SQL.
When some guy comes along and is like "we should do a better SQL!" the answer is yes, we should, but I'm not exactly going to hold my breath,
> And, I mean, maybe your example isn't really the best example you could have given. Name a layout quote-unquote more practical than QWERTY that should have caught on but didn't. Dvorak? No faster. Colmac? Nah. Any, y'know, studied benefits? None I can find, at least not with a P-value worth mentioning.
Do you believe that all keyboard layouts are of indistinguishable practicality? That seems to be the inescapable conclusion of your claim.
I'm happy to take hug's claim that there is no such evidence at face value. What I'm really interested in, however, is whether the absence of such evidence causes him/her to believe that there is no difference.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you: What I believe is that there are currently no keyboard layouts worth the hassle of switching, and to be honest I have a bit of a problem believing that there's any particular layout of 12 inch by 3 inch bit of space covered in linearly activated keys that is going to ever change that fact.
Most changes in keyboard layouts are obviated by the fact that peoples fingers are more flexible than the language they type in.
Do I believe there's better possible input methods than a 104-key keyboard? Most certainly. Have we got any yet? I don't think so.
Thanks for the response. For most people I'd agree with you. I found my RSI symptoms were significantly improved by switching to Dvorak though. I concede that is not a scientific test :)
Sure SQL is pretty good as far as entrenched 70s techs go, but that's a pretty low bar to clear for design (separate from making something which people actually use).
The more I learn about databases, the more I realize just how hoary that world is, teeming with verdant beasts just itching to snatch you away from your comfortable application into Cthulian madness.
SQL abstracts all of that away. Honestly we should thank the computing gods and make daily offerings that such a thing is even possible.
I think there is some network-effect and inertia, but I also think it is hard to design a query language which is significantly better than SQL. All attempts I have used have instead been clearly worse.
Even things which are functionally very simple to implement won't necessarily catch on, ex: "If you could make keyboard layouts more practical than QWERTY, then you would have done so by now."