Re: How are OO databases doing

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing when "x" <x_at_not-exists.org> wrote:
> "Alfredo Novoa" <alfredo_novoa_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140014627.894497.234240_at_g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> It is even worse. XML "databases" are just hierarchical databases in
>> new clothes. The data model is even more clumsy, inefficient and
>> difficult to work with. :)
>
> We are older and wiser now, don't you think ?

Some of us may be, but that doesn't seem to apply nearly as widely as you'd wish.

> Now we know why those old models were clumsy, inefficient, ...
> We know we should not process data item by item.
> We know we should process it set by set. :-)

You know that. I know that. But there are all sorts of people who neither encountered the old models in practice nor in their education, and so have no idea why they were discarded as clumsy and inefficient.

Unfortunately, SQL has enough clumsy inefficiencies itself that someone that hasn't a strong background (in both theory and experience) may easily fall prey to arguments to the effect that "it's no better"...

-- 
select 'cbbrowne' || '_at_' || 'gmail.com';
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lisp.html
OS/2: Why marketing matters more than technology...