[xquery-talk] here it comes, yet another version of XQuery and/or JSONiq
ihe.onwuka at gmail.com
Wed Jun 10 03:04:45 PDT 2015
Let me amplify my question.
It should be clear from the recent linkedin discussion that for a large
section of people using JSON syntax matters. So they will not understand
your assertion that XQuery is an extension of SQL. Any similarities in the
semantics and/or capabilities of the language are clouded by the
It should also be clear that alot of the same people are happy to accept a
partial even half baked solution so long as it is coated in familiar syntax
and are wllling to dive in and use such products without assesing their
capabilities. If you have forgotten this recall the person who was
trumpeting an SQL implementation over JSON that could not do summation.
Couchbase and co are tapping into the fact that there is a significant
market for whom functionality and capability are far less important than
appealing to their sense of familiarity. You could say the argument for
these products is the 80/20 rule although how you ever get to add up to 80%
with a product that can't do summations defeats me. Whatever the case it
should be very clear that many people would rather use a halfbaked SQL
implementation than use XQuery.
With mulesoft it is different because XQuery should be familiar to them.
That's why I say ask them. You may well get a different response.
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:41 AM, Ihe Onwuka <ihe.onwuka at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why don't you ask them?
> On Tue, Jun 9, 2015 at 11:07 PM, daniela florescu <dflorescu at me.com>
>> Why do people have so much fun reinventing stuff that was DEFINITELY not
>> fun to specify in the first
>> place !???
>> I will never understand how those guys think….
>> talk at x-query.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk