Yes, i think the right wording is something like "the power of understanding the concepts" or "having the right mental model" rather than "low level".
replyAnd this I think is best not done in SQL/ the relational-data paradigm. It's better to understand the problem in terms that do not tie you in to a specific technology. And once you have a clear picture of what need to be built, then choose persistence tech; if that happens to be SQL, you can then translate your solution to SQL.
replyIn my experience, SQL sorely misses sum-types. So I need to find a way to serialize the sum-types of my domain model to SQL.
“Fundamental” rather than “low-level”. Which also matches the article picture.
replyI was reacting to the parent post. And F and LL are very different. I'd say F is a more subjective metric.
replyI was reacting to the parent post as well, suggesting that they should have used “fundamental” rather than “low-level”, and that “fundamental” would also match the article picture.
replyDunno. I think the pic is useless. SQL is not in the foundation of all those langs.
replySQL is still very useful after all these years: that's the point that anyone will agree on.
Not low level. Not "fundamental" (by most definitions I can think of).