I was reading this thread with quite interest, and thought of saying something.

From the description of your language, at
http://sql40.chat.ru/site/sql40/en/author/introduction_eng.htm

To my opinion, you are essentially defining an interface between RDBMS
(it's tables) and the XML serialized form (the output).

Your language fulfils the need what XQuery does. An XQuery program can
operate on a data model constructed from a RDBMS schema.

IMHO, you are trying to re-invent the wheel, and have a feeling your
language will attract very less support from the industry.

On 10/11/07, Dmitry Turin <sql4-en@n...> wrote:
> Rick,
>
> RM> you don't know what the gotchas will be.
> Excuse me, what does mean word "gotchas" ?
>
> RM> Get a customer, build a first pass (alpha) version,
> RM> put it into the field. If it's any good it will start to get a life of
> RM> it's own - and you'll make a good living along the way.
> +
> RM> It took me 10 years to get a a very
> RM> good implementation and another 10 years to get a stable implementation
> RM> - even though the syntax looks simple enough.
> How big was your team ?
>
> RM> The next 10 years for me have been taken up with folding new technologies such as
> RM> browsers, javascript, etc into the product.
> Total: 30 years ?
>
> RM> Don't call it SQL - it's simply not.
> Arguments are absent again.
> Let i guess: you define SQL as matching to template
> 'EnglishWord Parameter EnglishWord Parameter EnglishWord Parameter', i.e.
> 'select      ...       from        ...       where       ...',       and nothing else.
>
> RM> syntax you propose actually adds anything.
> I must point you attention once again: SQL5 is _heterogeneous_ project.
> There are several ideas, not binding to each other.
>
> RM> There is a one to one translation into SQL
> as well as one to one translation from C to assembler, from Prolog to C.
>
> RM> and most database
> RM> programmers would do the translation in their head every day.
> Manual labour instead of machine labour.
>
> >> RS> your design might have a flaw that can only be found during implementation.
> >> Speculatively
> >>
> >> RS> I don't think you've actually TAKEN a single bit of the advice
> >> Advice is (in order of following) to not bring different syntax,
> >> to separate from existing databases, to fear (look first quotation).
>
>
> Dmitry Turin
> SQL5      (5.5.0)  http://sql50.euro.ru
> HTML6     (6.4.3)  http://html60.euro.ru
> Unicode7  (7.2.0)  http://unicode70.euro.ru
> Computer2 (2.0.2)  http://computer20.euro.ru


-- 
Regards,
Mukul Gandhi