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

Bob Badour wrote:
> Marshall wrote:
>
> > Ed Prochak wrote:
> >
> >>Where's the guys from the theory group? Have you guys nothing to say on
> >>this matter?
> >
> > What is there to say? Any claim about relational being dead
> > by someone who isn't even aware of what a relational dbms is is
> > not worth responding to. The guy has no vaguest clue about
> > data management, data theory, or the current state of the art.
> >
> > In fact, he doesn't seem to be aware of state of the art 30 years ago.
> > Remember: those who get an F in history are doomed to repeat
> > it next semester.
>
> And here I thought I already replied to him. What am I? Chopped liver?

Sorry, Bob. I have seen your posts and they make good points. I just thought there would be more of an uproar from the theory side (like several posters jumping in the thread). I know from a theory point of view some of my own comments are nearly nonsense. 8^) So I expected to be slammed a little as well.

At this point I'm convinced he has a potential niche market DBMS, but nothing to suggest the Relational Model will fade away. Dmitry may be a good neuroscientist, but not a good computer scientist.

I'll drop from the discussion at this point. Have fun.

   Ed Received on Mon Jul 10 2006 - 14:34:54 CEST