Re: Insert vs Update syntax

[Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>]

Clodoaldo wrote:
> 2008/2/29, Brent Friedman <bfriedman(at)scanonline(dot)com>:
> > If you don't like the standard sql implementation, you could use plsql
> >  or any language to make an abstraction layer/wrapper for this
> >  functionality.  Just pass everything as a key/value pair, in an array or
> >  hashtable structure, to your abstraction layer/wrapper, and it can cycle
> >  through the data structure to do the insert or update for you.
>
> Ok. I have been playing these tricks for the last 25 years. Please no
> more tricks.

Tricks?

> If someone knows something about the reason for the
> insert syntax in instead of the Update syntax then please elaborate on
> it.

I believe it's because of the way it reads in English: "INSERT INTO 
<some columns> <these values>". One of the key benefits of SQL was 
supposed to be its ability for non-programmers to use it. As a result, 
they sacrificed consistency for the sake of ease-of-learning.

Of course, once you start writing queries of any complexity, you lose 
the benefits of reading as English.

If you come across a time machine, pop back to the first standards 
meeting and have a word with them, would you?

--
  Richard Huxton
  Archonet Ltd