Comment by BeefWellington

> Sounds a bit like "new thing scary" unless you show why having select in front actually avoids problems

This isn't really fair. BeefWellington gave a reason why SQL is how it is (and how it has been for ~50 years). It's reasonable to ask for a compelling reason to change the clause order. Simon's post says it "has always been confusing", but doesn't really explain why except by linking to a blog post that says that the SQL engine (sort of but not really) executes the clauses in a different order.

I think the onus of proof that SQL clauses are in the wrong order is on the people who claim they're in the wrong order.

This is a case where stating your opinion and credentials will make you sound really old and conservative so it will be easy to take cheap shots like "you are just afraid of change".

At my previous gig I worked for a decade with an application that meant creating and maintaining large hairy sql that was created to offload application logic to the database (_very_ original) And we used to talk about this "wrong order" often but I never once actually missed it. It was at the most a bit annoying when you jumped in a server to troubleshoot and you knew the two columns you were interested in and you could have saved two seconds. But when working with maintaining those massive queries it always felt good to have the projection up top because that is the end result and what the query is all about. I would not have liked if the method signature in eg Java was just the parameters and the return type was after the final brace. This analogy falls apart of course since params are all over the place but swapping things around wouldn't help.

So just go 'SELECT *...' and go back and expand later, I want my sql syntax "simple". /old developer

It really isn't. I've been working in this field for ages and did a lot of those years as a DBA and data modeler. I've worked with other syntaxes too, mostly MDX but some others specific to Hadoop/Spark. I'm not afraid of new things. I just want them to improve on what we have. I want them to be honest about situations where their solution isn't great.

SQL has lots of warts, e.g.: the fact that you can write SQL that joins tables without including those tables in a JOIN, which leads to confusion. It's fragmented too -- the other example I posted shows two different syntaxes for TOP N / LIMIT N because different vendors went different ways. The fact that some RDBMSes provide locking hint mechanics and some don't (at least not reliably). The fact that there's no standard set of "library" functions defined anywhere, so porting between databases requires a lot of validation work. It makes portability hard, and some of those features are missing from standards.

You'll note I also mentioned that if they want to add it that's fine but it's gonna wind up being a point of contention in a lot of places. That's because I've seen the same thing happen with the "Big Data" vs "what we have works" crowd.

Having select up front avoids problems in a couple key ways:

1. App devs who are working on their application can immediately see what fields they should expect in their resultset. For CRUD, it's probably usually just whatever fields they selected or `*` because everyone's in the habit of asking for every field they'll never use.

2. Troubleshooting problems is far easier because they almost always stem from a field in the projection. Seeing the projected field list (and thus, table aliases that field comes from) are literally the first pieces of information you need (what field is it and where does that field come from) to start troubleshooting. This is why SELECT ... FROM makes the most sense -- it's literally the two most crucial pieces of information right up front.

3. Query planners already optimize and essentially compile the entire thing anyways, so legibility trumps other options IME.

Another point I'd make to you and everyone else bringing up autocomplete: If you need it, nothing is stopping you from writing your FROM clause first and then moving a line up to write your SELECT. Kinda like how you might stub out a function definition and later add arguments. This doesn't affect the final form for legibility.

> If you engage the syntax with your System 2 thinking (prefrontal cortex, slow, the part of thinking we're naturally lazy to engage) rather than System 1 (automated, instinctual, optimized brain path to things we're used to)

You might not have intended it this way, but your choice of phrasing is very condescending.

Edit: In my pre-coffee rush this morning I completely missed the grouping by role (which is not that much harder FWIW). This unfortunately invalidates my entire post as it was posted and I don't want to spread misinfo.