Hmm. While it's true that SQL isn't Turing complete, I'm not sure how constructive it is to state authoritatively that it's "not a programming language". Certainly it depends on how you define `programming language'.

Trying to police the domain of `real programming languages' strikes me as similar to being an English language maven. Is `irregardless' a "real" word? Is `ain't'? Is HTML a "real language"? Is SQL? Is Postscript?

SQL is non-Turing complete by design. This is a very useful feature. If SQL were Turing complete, it would be less useful for the vast majority of applications it serves.

Why bother trying to determine what is a real language, and what isn't? The point is, people use it. I'd say it's likely to be the language most often used by a Perl programmer (other than Perl). HTML would of course contest that.

ObPoll Response: Ruby and SML/NJ

-dlc