> It still fascinates me why people take human-focused formats (SQL, shell commands in one line) and use them in automated programs.
I tend to assume that it happens because it is what's available, and possibly easier (at least in some cases, but then the lowest common denominator wins). Unintended and not quite appropriate use of technologies in general seems to often happen that way.
> Same can be said for HTML (it was designed for human writing/reading), but it's too late to change that. But SQL and shell commands can be fixed today in application access.
Well, HTML 5 includes the XML-based syntax, which is quite machine-friendly. And for running programs one can indeed skip a shell and just run it with provided arguments and environment variables when it's done programmatically. While to SQL there's usually no alternatives in relational databases.
Though I think even SQL isn't inherently bad: a complete, specified, and sensible grammar, together with a proper parser, would allow sane composition and processing, and exclude the bugs such as this one.
I tend to assume that it happens because it is what's available, and possibly easier (at least in some cases, but then the lowest common denominator wins). Unintended and not quite appropriate use of technologies in general seems to often happen that way.
> Same can be said for HTML (it was designed for human writing/reading), but it's too late to change that. But SQL and shell commands can be fixed today in application access.
Well, HTML 5 includes the XML-based syntax, which is quite machine-friendly. And for running programs one can indeed skip a shell and just run it with provided arguments and environment variables when it's done programmatically. While to SQL there's usually no alternatives in relational databases.
Though I think even SQL isn't inherently bad: a complete, specified, and sensible grammar, together with a proper parser, would allow sane composition and processing, and exclude the bugs such as this one.