Does anyone know why they chose to make AQL diverge from SQL so much?
As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, FOR -> SELECT, IN -> FROM, FILTER -> WHERE, SORT -> ORDER BY.
Is there a reason the authors didn't use the more familiar SQL keywords?
As far as I can tell from a cursory glance, FOR -> SELECT, IN -> FROM, FILTER -> WHERE, SORT -> ORDER BY.
Is there a reason the authors didn't use the more familiar SQL keywords?
Interesting, but lacking in details. The trivial examples I see in posts like this always seem to map perfectly to SQL.
AQL was indeed inspired by XQuery. We made some user acceptant tests at the very start and used a version which was using keywords from SQL and a more descriptive approach with keywords from programming languages. At least our test users were mostly confused by a similar SQL-syntax but slightly different SQL sematic.
We talked to the JSONiq guys. They had a look as XQuery and AQL and made a similar decision.