Whining for SQL

Several folks have been whining (and I do mean whining) about the lack of SQL in cloud computing. The common arguments are that SQL is the standard for database access, that it is familiar (meaning that a lot of people have learned it), that it is needed to build applications effectively.

To these arguments, I say "bunk".

SQL has a limited history in the computing age. It become popular in the 1980s. prior to then, we got along without SQL quite well. SQL is not needed to access data or build applications effectively.

I will pause here to disclose my bias: I dislike SQL. I think that the language is ugly, and I don't like ugly languages.

As I see it, SQL was the result of two forces. One was the popularity of relational databases, which in turn were driven by a desire to reduce redundant data. The second force was the desire to divide the work of application development cleanly between database design and application design. I'm not sure that either of these forces applies in today's world of technology.

Cloud applications may not need SQL at all. We may be able to create new methods of accessing data for cloud applications. (And we seem to be well on our way doing so.) Insisting that cloud apps use SQL is a misguided attempt at keeping an old (and ugly ... did I mention ugly?) data access mechanism. Similar thinking was common in the early days of microcomputers (the pre-IBM PC days) when people strove to implement FORTRAN and COBOL compilers on microcomputers and build systems for general ledger and inventory.

Google has no incentive to bring SQL to the cloud. Nor do Amazon.com and Salesforce.com. The players who do have incentive for SQL in the cloud are the vendors selling SQL databases: Microsoft and Oracle. I expect that they will find a way -- some way, any way -- to use SQL in cloud apps. And I expect those ways to be expensive.

But despite the efforts of Microsoft and Oracle, I expect cloud apps to thrive without SQL.