3 ms·
Please elaborate. Non-trivial data structured will either need a database, or end up resembling one anyhow when you add features they'll eventually need as they
by tabtab 8y ago
Please elaborate. Non-trivial data structured will either need a database, or end up resembling one anyhow when you add features they'll eventually need as they mature (concurrency, data integrity, querying, adding indexes without changing functionality/design, backups, etc.)
Note that didn't imply that Linux should designed around a DB. However, with virtualization, the idea of an "OS" may change or vanish. The view is toward "applications", with the associations between applications, users, file systems, and machinery more flexible. In that approach, a DB-centric view may make more sense. A (traditional) "OS" is a machine-centric view.
- zzzcpan 8y agoData-structures are machine-centric, not abstract relational algebra. You can understand why it's important to think about data structures for the machine. Which is a completely opposite view from relational databases, where you are supposed to not think of how data relates to the machine at all.
- tabtab 8y agoIn practice the boundary between both is fuzzy. Processing DB data can and is often done in a row-by-row or cell-by-cell basis. Not all computations are convenient to reduce to relational algebra, at least for most practitioners. We can't all be Sheldons.