17 Jul
2009
17 Jul
'09
10:17 a.m.
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-
bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Jules Richardson
Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 10:00 AM
To: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
Subject: Re: Do not call them PCMCIA Cards (was "An interesting eBay
find ....)
Liam Proven wrote:
Yes, as Sridhar pointed out... it would be interesting to know how many
of the
current crop of folk who call it sequel are doing so in reference to
the
original IBM version. I suspect the answer is rather close to zero ;-)
"Correct" pronunciation might be a matter for debate, given that IBM
renamed
their product; were the lots of people *after* the renaming still going
around
calling it sequel? Certainly it was SQL by the time I first encountered
databases, and I only started hearing 'sequel' in the latter half of
the 90s
(around the rise of the MS product, I suspect, BICBW)
Either way it's interesting how these pronunciations go in phases -
perhaps
everyone will be calling it sequel in ten years' time, and anyone
spelling it
out as S.Q.L will be beaten over the head with a large stick.
cheers
Jules
I once met a pleasant young woman who was learning database programming. She pronounced
it 'squeal'. As I recall, I managed not to choke on my beer, and just smiled.
Hey, she was cute.... -- Ian
2009/7/16 Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at
gmail.com>:
> When IBM first developed the language, it was called SEQUEL. It was
renamed
> to SQL later, because of a trademark issue.
The pronunciation
"sequel" is
older
than the abbreviation "SQL".
/Thank/ you, Sridhar.
Jules, David: I'm afraid it really doesn't matter if you like it or
not. The pronunciation "sequel" is correct, because SEQUEL, IBM's
Structured English QUEry Language, was called that, and the one that
now bears the initialism S. Q. L. was derived from this.