055static's comments

So the language implies something about the functionality of the database. That seems obvious enough.

But does it necessaruly tell you anything about the underlying structure and the performance of a database?

If we drop that acronym, "SQL", and still provide a database that handles relational queries (but perhaps uses a different but equally capable language), does that matter? If yes, how much? And why?

I'm curious where the most perceived "value" is. For example, is it in the internal structures of the database? Is it in the query language? Is it in the fact that everything is packaged together as a "system"?

I have seen a database that uses an SQL-like language but it is not a RDB. It's said to be much faster than Oracle, but it certainly doesn't need the SQL syntax to work. Needless to say, the speed doesn't come from the SQL syntax. :)

It made me wonder about decoupling the language from the interpreter. Without the SQL characteristic, would anyone be attracted to the MySQL, PostgresSQL, ..., WhizBangSQL systems?

He knows most ideas will fail when they are executed.

So the "logical" thing to do is to stop executing and just acquire existing patents and file for new ones. Then wait for others who want to execute or who try to execute. Then, if it looks like they have, or will have, the money to pay, threaten to sue them.

Brilliant!

A true innovator.

1. But those are general statements. Opinions. What I mean is give me a specific case. A specific example, a specific block of JSON and a specific task. Once I have that, then I can ask myself "Is this something I would ever need to do or that I have to do on a regular basis?"

Sometimes I need to write one-off filters. There is just no getting around it. I have to choose a utility that gives maximum flexibility and is not too verbose; I don't like to type. Lots of people like Perl, and other similar scripting languages for writing one-off filters. But Perl, _out of the box_, is not a line-by-line filter. It's unlike sed/awk; it needs more memory. That brings us to #2.

2. If I understand correctly, jq is reading the entire JSON block into memory. This is what separates your program and so many other sed/awk "replacements" from sed and awk, the programs they purport to "replace". sed/awk don't read entire files into memory, they operate line-by-line and use a reasonably small buffer. Any sed/awk "replacement" would have to match that functionality. Given that sed/awk don't read in an entire structure (JSON, XML, etc.) before processing it, they are ideal for memory constrained environments. (As long as you don't overfill their buffers, which rarely happens in my experience.)

Anyway, so far I like this program. Best JSON filter I've seen yet (because I can hack on the lexer and parser you provided).

Well done.

That quote from the ex-Microsoftie is the classic. Most ideas will fail. Right. Let's attribute brilliance to a master of the obvious. But the one idea that succeeds, even if it's "a way to kill aliens faster", will undoubtedly hear from a patent troll, like IV. Are you "OK with that"?

They will go after whoever is making money. And what do they contribute? Nothing.

Wow, this compiles fast. And the Flex and Bison files are there. This seems hackable. Nice work!

My only questions are (they are always the same with any purported sed/awk "replacement"):

1. what was the problem you were trying to solve where sed and awk failed you, and

2. does this program operate line by line or does it read entire files into memory?

I had to deal with some JSON a while ago and threw together some sed like this just so I could read it:

    sed '
    s/,/&\
    /g;
    /^$/d;
    s/^[{][^}]/\
    &/g; 
    /\"/s/,/<##eol##>/g;
    s/ *//;
    ' |tr '\012' '\040' |sed '
    s/<##eol##>/\
    /g;
    s/\[/\
    &\
    /;
    s/\]/\
    &\
    /;
    s/,  /, /g;
    '

But any difficuly I have dealing with JSON I attribute to the pervasive use of JSON, not sed.

Maybe they're just looking for improvements in the way they do sorting? Asking questions like these in interviews might be a way to find people who could teach their code monkeys new tricks?

Or it might have just been some silly way to eliminate candidates for arbitrary reasons. The usual.

Anyway, sorting is a big deal I think. If you can do it faster even by just a little bit than everyone else, that's a competitive advantage. Just my personal opinion.

Apple trying to get kids to leave college early?

"Loses job"? Do they mean "job opportunity"? He's a student.

And I'm sure he could get another offer if he set his mind to it. Though I'm not sure it's worth his time. Looking to the future, his talents might be better applied elsewhere.

Apple, at the rate they're going, is soon enough a lost cause. They might seem great today. But just wait.

Please clarify: Is [a-zA-Z]*SQL a query language or is it software (i.e. an implementation of an interpreter for a language)?

Dear Would-Be Entrepreneurs Wanting to Use Buzzwords:

It's not peer-to-peer ("P2P") if peers are not communicating _directly_. If they are using your server to communicate, e.g. post ads, then it's NOT peer-to-peer. It's a bulletin board. There is a difference between a) a switchboard, b) a bulletin board and c) a person-to-person telephone call.

Sincerely

End-User Looking for REAL P2P Services Not Fake Ones

This doesn't work with my sed-based XML parsers. :(

Nice long form.

But I'm tired of hearing about this guy's lifestyle or his character.

That's not the really interesting issue here. The issue is technology. Some people undertand it, some don't. Dotcom says as a youth he took the time to undersatnd X.25 and PBX's. Yet the companies using these systems did not. Regardless of his character, it's everyone else's failure to take the same sort of interest in understanding technology, yet at the same time using it _and_ placing an enormous amount of trust in it, that leads to problems.

Hollywood wouldn't be in quite the same mess they're in if they aggressively pursued understanding competitive technology down to the last detail. And why couldn't they? It's going to eat them alive and they know it. By becoming the "experts", they could stay one step ahead of competitors. They might end up competing with themselves (the old technology), but that's inevitable anyway. Technoloy is going to transition. No one can stop this. If the entertainment industry made the effort to know internet technology the best, no one could out maneuver them.

All Dotcom's riches are riches that would normally belong to Hollywood execs. Why are the riches moving to nerds (many of dubious character)? Because they are moving to the new technology. In a sense, money doesn't care who the recipient is. It generally moves to the technology, not the person. Whoever understands the tech the best has the best shot at getting the money.

The issue here really isn't some nerd like Dotcom, or his life story, it's the transition of technology and the refusal of some who have deeply vested interests in what this technology can do (distribute entertainment), to make the effort to understand it.

The spy agency in NZ dismissed the gentleman who was in charge of tapping Dotcom's communications. The news tried interviewing him and he refused to talk to them. I'm guessing here bu I doubt he ever wanted to get involved in this mess. Do we need covert intelliegnce to discover copyright infringement? People are downloading free movies! Red alert! His dismissal seems totally unnecessary. This whole incident should never have happened.

Forget about Dotcom. It's time for the entertainment industry to come to terms with the internet. It's early yet. They have as good a shot as anyone to profit. Maybe this case will finally get the message to Hollywood execs that their defensive strategies are not working. They are not fighting people (like Dotcom) they are fighting technology. They need to start thinking like entrepreneurs.

If they're trying to sell us on this free software, why don't they provide a diagram of the SSP packet instead of telling us about UTF-8 support? I can tell whether I'm seriously interested in this just from looking at how they've structured the packet. Do I have to go digging in the source code just to get a preview? I looked at the USENIX paper and nothing in there either. When I have time I'll take a look at the src.

It's is one of life's small pleasures when programs (useful programs) compile fast and with relative simpicity.

If you want to experience this, try www.sigala.it/sandro/ and cutils. There's a links to it on the OP's page. Programs as UNIX filters, written with flex and bison. Beautiful.

I like this OP because he includes a grammar file. If every programmer that tries making his own language did this, the world would be a better place. Did he also include the .l file in the src? I'm too lazy to look. I think they should include those too. It makes the whole thing easier to understand (and modify).

I too get annoyed with having to install the author's own libs. Sometimes these libs are better than the standard ones (e.g. everyone knows C's stdio sucks). If the special libs are fixing something that needs fixing, I'm OK with using them. But nine times out of ten, that's not the case.

For this sort of thing, i.e. C code generation, I still like the LISP's that generate C.