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

just one point since otherwise you and I agree to be pragmatic. Well actually two points

Josip Almasi wrote:
> Ed Prochak wrote:
> >
[]
> > Flexibility and solid foundation are not mutually exclusive. Large
> > skyscrapers designed to sway in the wind, are built on bedrock
> > foundations. Good software is built in analogous ways.
>
> I have do disagree on this one. The ultimate reason - each model is
> incomplete. And I can pull that to architecture too - cathedrals are not
> built on any model and no model explains how they work.

They were built by trial and error. Nothing says trial and error will fail to find a solution, it is just not guaranteed to find an optimal solution. I'd hate to see a skyscraper built with gothic cathedral technology. Trial and error solutions usually don't scale well either.

[]
> >>Smells like networks are more general however. Each time we draw an ER
> >>diagram we prove it;)
> >
> > Your sense of smell may be off.
>
> LOL:))
> In fact you're right, literally:)))
> As a kid I fell on my nose and...:))))

LOL
>
> > It comes down
> > to a question of flexibility and performance. And in general Relational
> > Model implimentations win that battle.
>
> Sure. But as I stated earlier, IMHO it's not up to model, it's due to
> vast resources that have been spent on RDBMS research and development.

This is the one point I cannot let pass unchallenged. When the Relational model was first being implemented into a DBMS product, the Network Model was king. There were not vast resources forcing the Relational Model onto the programming field. It was practical software engineers that saw the advantages. from that grew the behemouth that is now ORACLE. (at least that is what I understand as the main source of "vast resources" that you mention). You are not fighting ORACLE marketting droids in this discussion.

But maybe I misread your comment. Further detail is welcome.

   Ed Received on Thu Jul 20 2006 - 20:12:30 CEST