Re: acceptable way to program

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_x.washington.edu> wrote in message news:41d8219f$1_1_at_127.0.0.1...
> fishfry wrote:
>> In article <IhjBd.5746$6i.1873_at_bignews6.bellsouth.net>,
>> "Tom Dyess" <tdyess_at_dysr.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I would agree with the relational database. ORDB are mainly hype and
>>>usually promoted by coders that have never had to write a report or mine
>>>data effectively.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is this really true? I'm an experienced database programmer learning the
>> Java/OO way of doing things and I'm puzzled that people use Hibernate and
>> similar tools to define objects, with the database serving as just a
>> passive serialization mechanism with no thought to database theory. How
>> can this possibly work in real life? Also I've been told that stored
>> procedures are not supported by Hibernate, is that true? How can it be
>> that 20 years of relational theory seems to be getting thrown out
>> overnight? Or am I just misinformed?
>
> It is true. Most of the Java being written against relational databases
> doesn't perform and doesn't scale well. The saving grace for all of
> those Java geniuses is that they can blame it on the web and 99% of IT
> management is too clueless to know better.

That is pure opinion but you're welcome to it. I'm not sure why relational purists are so biased against Java, but I can't think of a single programming language that has increased the productivity of programmers more than Java. Personally I prefer Java Stored Procedures to PL/SQL because they are far quicker to develop and easier to debug, not too mention the performance is comparable and sometimes superior when using the native libraries. I can't understand why someone would choose clunky old PL/SQL unless they are stuck in "the old days." Received on Sat Feb 19 2005 - 23:56:58 CST