I won't address every point here, but a couple of thoughts:
- To close the syntax point — I opened https://github.com/PRQL/prql/issues/3518. We're currently using the output of the rust's canonical SQL formatter. (so any claim we're obfuscating SQL's syntax is incredulous — do you agree?). I'm open to hand-written examples if SQL doesn't have sufficient auto-formatting tools available.
- "never answering (what I believed to be) substantive questions regarding extensibility and lowest common SQL denominators" — some of the features are implemented, some aren't, there are issues on GH for by-and-large all of them. Feel free to open other issues. I don't think there's a duty to respond to every question in every comment on HN, and I certainly don't think losing your composure is an appropriate response to others not answering every question.
- Many of the answers to your questions are in the docs — for example escape hatches. You don't have to read them to engage, but claims about a project's "youthful exuberance" are less credulous from those who haven't done so.
- Stepping back, are these are informed & constructive criticisms, or are they grasps for straw-men as part of a reactionary response? For example, the response takes two phrases from the website out-of-context to load a whole argument on the words "stable" & "standard". But stability & standards can each mean multiple things, and taking the least generous interpretation of a word doesn't make for a reasoned critique. Does a point such as:
touting itself as a production-ready alternative standard to SQL
...have any grounding in fact? Or does it come through this aggrieved reactionary lens? For context, PRQL's Readme specifically states:
PRQL still has some bugs and some missing features, and is probably only ready to be rolled out to non-technical teams for fairly simple queries.
Be honest. If a different project touted itself as a standard and a firm foundation on its public website but had this disclaimer on the source repo's README file, what would your thoughts be?
While you may categorize my responses as reactionary—and they very well may be—can you really claim unbiased objectivity on your part?
For example, JS and C# have ECMA. SQL, C, and C++ have ISO. POSIX has IEEE. All have multiple implementations by different organizations. The term "standard" has a clear, well-defined meaning in computing with a long history. Your response was to handwave it away as "meaning multiple things." Whether de facto or de jure, the appellation in PRQL's case simply does not apply.
I appreciate that you are not obligated to read and respond to every internet comment. When you do respond however, bear in mind that dismissing clearly defined definitions of industry terms like "stable" and "standard" is not an unbiased position.
I am not aggrieved. You asked for critical and constructive feedback. I laid out plainly where I believed the messaging was incongruous from the point of view of someone not intimately involved with PRQL and how I felt it should be changed to better fit its role in the data ecosystem. I didn't call for the project's elimination or even call into question the need for improvement over the existing state of SQL. Take of that what you will.
I won't address every point here, but a couple of thoughts:
- To close the syntax point — I opened https://github.com/PRQL/prql/issues/3518. We're currently using the output of the rust's canonical SQL formatter. (so any claim we're obfuscating SQL's syntax is incredulous — do you agree?). I'm open to hand-written examples if SQL doesn't have sufficient auto-formatting tools available.
- "never answering (what I believed to be) substantive questions regarding extensibility and lowest common SQL denominators" — some of the features are implemented, some aren't, there are issues on GH for by-and-large all of them. Feel free to open other issues. I don't think there's a duty to respond to every question in every comment on HN, and I certainly don't think losing your composure is an appropriate response to others not answering every question.
- Many of the answers to your questions are in the docs — for example escape hatches. You don't have to read them to engage, but claims about a project's "youthful exuberance" are less credulous from those who haven't done so.
- Stepping back, are these are informed & constructive criticisms, or are they grasps for straw-men as part of a reactionary response? For example, the response takes two phrases from the website out-of-context to load a whole argument on the words "stable" & "standard". But stability & standards can each mean multiple things, and taking the least generous interpretation of a word doesn't make for a reasoned critique. Does a point such as:
...have any grounding in fact? Or does it come through this aggrieved reactionary lens? For context, PRQL's Readme specifically states: