Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside

From: Bob Badour <bbadour_at_pei.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 12:51:25 GMT
Message-ID: <hvtqg.5988$pu3.136857@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Dmitry Shuklin wrote:

> Hi Bob
>

>>In short, no. What you have implemented is mind-numbingly restricted and
>>feeble.

>
> Why ?)) What database based on described conception can't do ? Even
> making application is more comfortable because object relation mapping
> not needed at all.

Look, if you are completely ignorant of the last 50 years of computing, I have no intention of trying to educate you in a usenet post.

You are focusing on structure to the exclusion of integrity and manipulation. That's just a dumb mistake. Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 07:51:25 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Bob Badour: "Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside"
Previous message: Bob Badour: "Re: comms standards (Was: What databases have taught me)"
In reply to: Dmitry Shuklin: "Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside"
Next in thread: Dmitry Shuklin: "Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside"
Reply: Dmitry Shuklin: "Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US