6 ms·
you ignored the silver bullet criticism i don't think so, i simply refuse to have my arguments framed that way since i'm very well aware of the shortcomings pr
by ta0967 10y ago
you ignored the silver bullet criticism
i don't think so, i simply refuse to have my arguments framed that way since i'm very well aware of the shortcomings present in what has so far passed for a "RDBMS". i consider velocitypsycho's argument ("Thinking RDBMS is a silver bullet is just as bad as thinking a document database is a silver bullet.") a non-sequitur: the former is a proper superset of the latter, that sentence simply "does not compute".
doubled down on SQL as the silver bullet
where does the post you replied to mention SQL? are you confusing SQL for the relational model?
- gaius 10y agoIt is a dead giveaway for inexperience, that some people refer to relational databases as "SQL databases".
- redrummr 10y agoBut let's not forget that schema-less databases are often marketed as noSQL, so typing sql (quicker on phone) should be acceptable imo.
- bunderbunder 10y agoThere are also quite a few databases that have schema but are not relational.
- electricEmu 10y agoThat is quite the demeanor to present considering SQL is pretty much synonymous with RDBMS.
- catnaroek 10y ago> the former is a proper superset of the latter Exactly. Just like static typing is a proper superset of dynamic typing. More generally, structured X is a proper superset of unstructured X.