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 12:53:28 GMT
Message-ID: <cxtqg.5989$pu3.136857@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>

Bill Karwin wrote:

> Dmitry Shuklin wrote:
>

>> But i really belive that far future belongs to network databases, not to
>> table-based.

>
> Well, a jackhammer can probably drive nails into a piece of wood, too.
> That doesn't mean it's the right tool for that job.
>
> Good luck with your research, in any case! Innovation pushes things
> forward. But not all innovation results in the technology we think it
> will.

What the hell do you think is innovative about re-inventing something that informed people abandoned 30 years ago? Received on Tue Jul 04 2006 - 07:53:28 CDT

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Cimode: "Re: RM's Canonical database (was: Bob's 'Self-aggrandizing ignorant' Count)"
Previous message: Bob Badour: "Re: I think that relational DBs are dead. See link to my article inside"
In reply to: Bill Karwin: "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