2 ms·
I didn't actually say I agree with you. I said I get your point. My point was that you admitted a single argument won't convince everyone that database semanti
by stephenr 9y ago
I didn't actually say I agree with you. I said I get your point.
My point was that you admitted a single argument won't convince everyone that database semantics matter, and then went on to list two features that MySQL handles just fine, regardless of how well it handles the other things you care about.
You may as well have said "a pet badger is better than a pet bulldog in so many ways, for example it will attack/chase home invaders".
Edit: I have no actual idea if you can have a badger for a pet, or how effective they really are at home protection but I imagine they'd be badass at it.
- jeffdavis 9y agoMy reasoning is something like: "if these simpler database semantics matter, then maybe you should look at the more sophisticated semantics postgres has to offer". If you get my point but find flaws in my argument, well, I can live with that. Counterpoints welcome.