3 ms·
Basically, he used to use Zope, and didn't like that you needed to instantiate an object to get it out of the DB. Then he complains his coworkers had some kind
by andrewvc 17y ago
Basically, he used to use Zope, and didn't like that you needed to instantiate an object to get it out of the DB. Then he complains his coworkers had some kind of ambiguous problem with this that only the author was smart enough to solve, then the author recognizes that this isn't at all a problem with modern NoSQL solutions (unless you want it to be).
Color me confused, what was the point of this diatribe? ZODB sucks? His coworkers suck because they only understand SQL? NoSQL might suck because ZODB sucks?
For the record, SQL is a beast, and far from intuitive. I hardly think most NoSQL is too hard for the masses (for that matter considering that NoSQL encompasses so many different techs its hard to say anything about NoSQL as a group), it sounds like no one at his shop wanted to really learn another DB since they could just ask this guy to help them out.
- ntoshev 17y agoHe is just saying that existing mindshare and support tools matter a lot, and it's a week spot for NoSql.
- andrewvc 17y agoThat may be, but all the specific shortcomings he mentioned in the article are definitely not there with CouchDB, which he specifically mentions. The futon (builtin) interface to Couch solves every one of the gripes he mentions with ZODB. I feel like the author may have a point, somewhere, but not in this article, which feels off the cuff, and just isn't really a well constructed argument about anything.