> On 1 Mar 2016, at 22:25, Jerry Lam <chiling...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Reynold,
>
> You are right. It is about the audience. For instance, in many of my cases,
> the SQL style is very attractive if not mandatory for people with minimum
> programming knowledge.
but SQL skills instead. Which is just relational set theory with a syntax,
Structured English Query Language from the IBM R project of the mid 1970s
(\cite{Gray et al, An evaluation of System R})
If you look at why SQL snuck back in as a layer atop the "Post-SQL systems",
it's
(a) tooling
(b) declarative queries can be optimised by query planners
(c) a lot of people who do queries on existing systems can migrate to the new
platforms. This is why FB wrote Hive; their PHP GUI teams didn't want to learn
Java.
> SQL has its place for communication. Last time I show someone spark
> dataframe-style, they immediately said it is too difficult to use. When I
> change it to SQL, they are suddenly happy and say how you do this. It sounds
> stupid but that's what it is for now.
>
try showing the python syntax. Python is an easier language to learn, and its
list comprehensions are suspiciously close to applied set theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@spark.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@spark.apache.org
