4 ms·

Do you not consider #1 to be at least close to accurate? Instead of XML we got JSON databases (NoSQL) which are very popular in some circles. They definitely do

Do you not consider #1 to be at least close to accurate? Instead of XML we got JSON databases (NoSQL) which are very popular in some circles. They definitely do not surpass the number of relational database installations, but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they stored more data in absolute terms.

qznc 11y ago
No. Yegge bet on XML specifically with all its XPath, XQuery, DTD stuff. I don't believe he was thinking about anything like NoSQL or JSON.
- kbenson 11y ago
  The quoted reason is “Nobody likes to do O/R mapping; everyone just wants a solution.” From that point of view, I think it's at least arguable that he chose XML databases as a stand-in for NoSQL, which wasn't really a thing yet. The fact that many NoSQL databases use JSON, which is the successor to XML for data interchange, lends a bit more support as well IMO. In other words, I think saying XML databases are the future in 2004 is like saying JSON document stores are the future now. I don't view either as all that correct, but there's definitely been a surge in interest.
geebee 11y ago
I'd say that non-sql databases did indeed explode in popularity, so this does get the nod. However, I think the prediction may have gone a little too far. Have they surpassed relational databases? I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are reconsidering the "nosql" approach, as well, sticking with (or reverting to) sql databases, including simple ol' mysql. This was an interesting interview that showed up on HN a few days ago. https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-nomadic-tech-team-4db562b96dcd https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-n... I was never all that enthusiastic about "nosql", partly because personality wise, I tend to be reluctant about new technologies, and I liked a system based on relational algebra, all that. That said, "nosql" wasn't really meant as a NO to sql. I get the feeling that the term got away from them a bit, largely because "you-know-sometimes-there-really-are-better-solutions-than-sql-for-some-problems-and-you-might-want-to-consider-them" isn't really an option as a catch phrase. That said, nosql absolutely did grow massively in popularity, it did move from the fringes to mainstream use, so as a prediction, yeah, I'd agree this should score a few points.

qznc 11y ago

No. Yegge bet on XML specifically with all its XPath, XQuery, DTD stuff. I don't believe he was thinking about anything like NoSQL or JSON.

kbenson 11y ago
The quoted reason is “Nobody likes to do O/R mapping; everyone just wants a solution.” From that point of view, I think it's at least arguable that he chose XML databases as a stand-in for NoSQL, which wasn't really a thing yet. The fact that many NoSQL databases use JSON, which is the successor to XML for data interchange, lends a bit more support as well IMO. In other words, I think saying XML databases are the future in 2004 is like saying JSON document stores are the future now. I don't view either as all that correct, but there's definitely been a surge in interest.

geebee 11y ago

I'd say that non-sql databases did indeed explode in popularity, so this does get the nod. However, I think the prediction may have gone a little too far. Have they surpassed relational databases? I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are reconsidering the "nosql" approach, as well, sticking with (or reverting to) sql databases, including simple ol' mysql. This was an interesting interview that showed up on HN a few days ago. https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-nomadic-tech-team-4db562b96dcd https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-n... I was never all that enthusiastic about "nosql", partly because personality wise, I tend to be reluctant about new technologies, and I liked a system based on relational algebra, all that. That said, "nosql" wasn't really meant as a NO to sql. I get the feeling that the term got away from them a bit, largely because "you-know-sometimes-there-really-are-better-solutions-than-sql-for-some-problems-and-you-might-want-to-consider-them" isn't really an option as a catch phrase. That said, nosql absolutely did grow massively in popularity, it did move from the fringes to mainstream use, so as a prediction, yeah, I'd agree this should score a few points.