SQL is fantastic for relational data - it maps pretty closely to relational algebra.

About all I'd change is placing the column names after the table/object names - "FROM table1 SELECT col1, col2" instead of "SELECT col1, col2 FROM table" because it makes code assist features easier. (Microsoft did this with LINQ)

I guess the reasoning for the 'SELECT ... FROM' is that the FROM part is optional, for example you can do stuff like 'SELECT 40+2 AS the_answer' .

SQL makes sense, but at its core, it's a query language, not a programming language. You can do lots of arbitrary computation with it if you want and use it for things it's not good at, but for its intended purpose, it works pretty well.

Well, if they think that about SQL, they are wrong.

SQL is more like math than natural language. That it is declarative doesn't make it like Applescript.

SQL is pretty damn simple.

Why are there no production-quality implementations of the newest standard then?

1) He didn't say "implementing it" is simple. Just that the language (using it, getting started with it) is simple.

2) Vendors get a lot of benefits by NOT providing a standard implementation (lock-in, for one).

3) It's not like everybody runs around implementing every new standard that comes out. Vendors have their own timelines and priorities. Heck, we've waited how many years for CSS3 to be implemented? (and it's still missing full support...).