3 ms·
This is ageism plain and simple. You clearly have no clue what was the predominant view in 1990s. Consistency wasn't just _a_ thing in the 1990s. It was a core
by fauigerzigerk 9y ago
This is ageism plain and simple.
You clearly have no clue what was the predominant view in 1990s. Consistency wasn't just _a_ thing in the 1990s. It was a core dogma even beyond database systems. It was top of the agenda for a while until it sort of fizzled out in the early 2000s when distributed transactions hit a complexity wall.
- smaddox 9y agoHow do you reduce transactional complexity by throwing out consistency? Genuine question. At the very least, it seems like you need to mark potentially inconsistent data as dirty.
- fauigerzigerk 9y agoI didn't mean to imply that you could. But the simplicity that consistent distributed transactions can deliver in principle can easily get drowned out by accidential complexity created by a specific implementation. For instance, you have to get all participants in a distributed transaction to support the same standard protocol without too much bridging, wrapping, special interface description languages, tons of configuration metadata, etc. You have to agree on a small stable set of features that everyone implements in a robust way. But the major corporate sponsors of the competing approaches originating in the 1990s and early 2000s got disrupted before any one of them could gain enough traction to bludgeon everyone else into compliance. My point was merely that almost no one in the 1990s doubted the necessity of consistent transactions. Eventual consistency and all the rest only became popular with NoSQL and the general desire to imitate internet giants that didn't even exist in the 1990s.