Re: What databases have taught me

> > how about: The advantages provided by RMDBs are diminished when:
> > 1) the structure of know data is highly-varied (or non-uniform).
> > 2) the structure of new data is unknown.
>
> What I read is an unbalanced, vague impression.
> FWIW: it doesn't make me say: "No no no,
> this is completely wrong!" - but that's about it
> (BTW I'd leave the RM out, in this case. Just DB).

Ok, but in general, the above two don't apply to dbd. Dbd's advantage/disadvantages aren't affected by simplicity or complexity of data structure. Its method to represent either is the same (albeit more of the same steps). And the impact on existing schema/queries/code as a result of adapting to new data requirements is less than other methodologies that I am aware of.

> It is important to find a good way of stating requirements.
> Up to now I don't think you have found it.

To develop a computing system similar to the human mind. Or less ambitiously, to develop a flexible system that is minimally impacted in terms of schema/scripts/queries/code by the need to meet future unknown requirements at run-time. (see post# 137 on May 8 in "Storing data and code in a Db with LISP-like interface"). Received on Sun Jun 25 2006 - 23:27:42 CEST