Straegen, I believe that you recieved the responses you did because your first few posts indicated that you believed that T-SQL was headed for the grave in it's entirety and rightfully so. In the lats post you somehwat contreadicted your early posts by stating
'I agree queries will still be run, but that is what they will be... queries'
I'm not so sure that the rest of us understand exactly what your stance is, I know I don't and maybe it's just me. In one post you say that it's time for T-SQL to head towards the grave and in another you state that it will still be used for queries. So what exactly is your stance on this issue? Are you saying that it's time for T-SQL to disappear from the face of the earth or are you saying that it's time for T-SQL to be used strinctly for working directly with relational data?
No contridiction from my viewpoint. SQL and T-SQL aren't the same thing. I don't think SQL is going anywhere since it does what it does quite well, but the way we access and manage the results from queries, loops, variables, error handling, transactions, etc (i.e. T-SQL) will likely shift to CLR in the long term. If you haven't programmed C# or VB.net, you will likely fall in love with them once you see how much easier data manipulation can be in a language that was designed for it.
I don't have a problem with someone disagreeing with me since my points are only speculation, but that first poster who called me silly either didn't read my post well and missed the point or has a screw loose. I am not being irrational. My point is that anyone who uses both TSQL and some other next gen language will tell you that TSQL is weak in many areas and it is time to get something better. It isn't marketing or some spitball idea (at least not completely). Programmers have been asking for a real language in SQL for quite a while.
The original author of the story made it sound like CLR wasn't "all bad" and I believe that CLR integration is great. That is where our points divulge. My additional thoughts about TSQL going the way of dino are just thoughts that reminded me of the old COBOL switch (back when more lines of code were written in COBOL than any other language).
This gets back to my COBOL arguement. COBOL could do almost all the things that next gen languages could do, but it wasn't adept at it. I believe T-SQL suffers from the same problem. Complex loops, variable management, inline procedures, ability to create and manage objects can all be done or simulated in T-SQL. It is just easier to do in other next gen languages.
This does get into another discussion flying around. When I refer to SQL, I am referring to the set based SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE statements. When I refer to T-SQL being replaced by CLR, I am referring to the logical part of SQL such as flow control, variables, etc that normally reside in stored procedures. I know they are the same animal inside SQL Server and that seems to be leading to some confusion.
The ability to import an assembly and reuse code gives CLR a huge advantage. Think about it... one unified language in development, application automation such as Excel and Office, extensions in products like Exchange and finally integrated into systems such as SQL Server. How long do you think it is before any technical person can go without knowing CLR? In ten years, knowing C# or VB.net will be common even for many savy end users. By contrast I still know developers who use SQL Server who couldn't do a FETCH in SQL without googling it? MS is clearly pushing CLR to replace the logical aspects of TSQL.