4 ms·
If adding a SQL interface makes a system easier to access, that says a lot about how convoluted the original interface is... Next logical step : a kernel level
by burstmode 6y ago
If adding a SQL interface makes a system easier to access, that says a lot about how convoluted the original interface is...
Next logical step : a kernel level SQL interpreter integrated in systemd.
- arankine 6y agoThere is OSQuery (https://osquery.io/ https://osquery.io/)!
- jarym 6y agoActually I think it says a lot about how expressive SQL is. I get why a lot of developers take swipes at SQL - it is a bit different to other languages. But you cannot beat it for what it does. Another ‘great’ language is XSLT - so far I’ve seen nothing else that comes close for transforming data. It’s just a shame it’s so closely tied to XML which has understandably fallen out of favour
- teget 6y agoAs arankine noted there is the platform independent osquery. There is also SQL for WMI [1], which predates osquery, I believe. [1]: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wmisdk/querying-with-wql https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wmisdk/queryi...
- rco8786 6y agoI’m not sure there’s much truth to your statement. There’s nothing inherently complex about git’s internal data structure nor does putting a SQL interface on something indicate a level of complexity.
- cocktailpeanuts 6y agoMost people only need to know git commit, git push, git pull, and just a handful of commands. It is by design that something like this is not included into the original interface. It would be. terrible design.