One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under "avoid at all costs" in my brain.
Exactly why I made it very clear that I don't have any details on that database. I was merely suggesting that there is work being done in this area, and that I feel we will benefit from it sometime in the not-so-distant future.
To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ?
That's also the thinking that brings innovation to crawl. Sometimes that's necessary, and a very good thing. But, not everything must be absolutely bullet-proof stable. Plus there's nothing in either EOF or RoR that is inherently more stable or unstable. Poor, unstable code is as easy to write in WO as it is in RoR. At least in my experience anyway.
It's interesting that you bring up the EOF vs Rails argument. If RoR was a completely unstable pile of crap, then its popularity would have faded long before now. There's some real innovation going on in that space. There's a lot of things to learn from looking at competing framework. I'm a big fan of EOF, but I'm also a big fan of RoR.
I'll use the tool that best fits my requirements. Making blanket statements about a framework, based on hearsay, simply because it may compete with what you're using doesn't really do anyone any good. This is a trend that seems to be perpetual. I just try to step outside the arguments and take advantage of what each language and framework has to offer.
My apologies, I will be quiet now. I didn't mean to start anything, but I want my point of view to be clear.
On Apr 8, 2008, at 1:09 PM, Simon McLean wrote:
One of our suppliers used this DB and it was, to use a technical term, a bag of crap. That was a few years back now, so it may have moved on a bit, but it's one of those things filed under "avoid at all costs" in my brain.
To me relational = reliable. It's a bit like EOF vs Ruby on Rails. Yeah, there's stacks of whizzy new bits of kit out there, but at the end of the day would you lay your life on something that's got just a few months under it's belt, or stick with something that's been running heavily used systems for years ?
Simon
On 8 Apr 2008, at 17:55, Robert Walker wrote:
http://www.intersystems.com/cache/index.html
I don't yet know a lot about this, but from reading their feature list, systems like this may be in our near future.
Feature and Benefits:http://www.intersystems.com/cache/technology/fb/fb_02.html
On Apr 8, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Miguel Arroz wrote:
Hi!
On 2008/04/08, at 17:12, Robert Walker wrote:
Speaking of that, why do we continue the "Cargo Cult" of the relational database? Isn't it about time to move past them, and begin moving to persistent storage that makes sense in the modern age of objects?
That's all I'll say on the subject. I'm not trying to start a long discussion that will all end in tears.
I do agree, I hate relational DBs. The problem is that I still didn't find any other persistent store that:
1) Can scale and handle high load (in a real environment, not just on the spec sheet);
2) Is affordable/free;
3) Integrates well with powerful frameworks like WO.
When something comes up that meets these criteria, I will move on the first day. I feel the same as you, it's incredible how little databases have evolved in the last decades. But if making a good alternative was easy, we would have lots of them around, I guess.
Yours
Miguel Arroz
Miguel Arroz