Question

This is something that has always bothered me. Wouldnt it make more sense to have the FROM clause come before the SELECT? Whenever Im writing sql, especially with joins, I always figure out the FROM clause first and then write the SELECT.

Plus, putting the FROM first would allow for better intellisense inside the editor.

Does anyone know what the reasoning was to have SELECT come first? Am I only one who is bothered by this?

Answer 1

Yes it is strange and counterintuitive. Hugh Darwen theorises about how this state of affairs came about:

Do you take SELECT-FROM-WHERE for
granted, or do you, like me, find it
rather curious that the System R team
should have spurned the normal way of
writing expressions of arbitrary
complexity in favour of something
utterly idiosyncratic and, one might
say, rather dictatorial…?

The fact is that in the 1960s various
scripting languages (as we tend to
call such things these days) had come
about for the purposes of report
generation, especially ad hoc report
generation. We had one such language
in the prerelational DBMS called
Terminal Business System (TBS) that I
worked on for IBM from 1969-77. Our
language required the user to specify
the required report in a series of
steps that had to be given in the
prescribed order…

A somewhat similar but much more
sophisticated report generator was
later developed by IBM in the US, as
part of a product called (prosaically,
as was IBM’s style in those days)
Generalized Information System
(GIS)… when I first looked at SQL,
my immediate reaction was “Oh no!
Son of GIS? Please not that!” I
might have been quite wrong about
this. The similarity I perceived
might have been illusory and even if
it was not, I have no firm evidence
that anybody in the System R team was
familiar with GIS. The fact remains
that the general style of a fixed
order of actions was the order of the
day at the time. I postulate that
SQL’s SELECT-FROM-WHERE arose out of
this fashion.

From HAVING a Blunderful Time