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
http://www.terminalapp.net
http://www.ipragma.com
Robert Walker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
