I didn't mean to imply it was a bad thing. I meant to say it's hard to write positively. Without straying too far from the original premise, it's worth pointin

I didn't mean to imply it was a bad thing. I meant to say it's hard to write positively. Without straying too far from the original premise, it's worth pointing out that the idea of using a graph database for traditional tasks is in fact a new idea. Most people would not consider doing it, and that makes it new. Notice an interesting philosophical thing that happens every time philosophical debates occur: We quickly get mixed up in a debate over the meaning of words. "What do you mean by 'new'?" It's worth excluding such questions from debate. Questions over the meaning of words rarely go anywhere interesting. http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html Oh dear, look where we've ended up. But it was an intriguing place, I hope. The overall point is that if you advocate something non-traditional on HN, you're in for a world of hurt. This place is nothing if not adversarial. You'd better have your I's dotted and your T's crossed. But those constraints are what make the medium so interesting.