14 ms·
It always starts that way. In time, the legacy baggage that gets added will turn the noSQL databases into the same bloated monsters that the SQL databases have
by blihp 8y ago
It always starts that way. In time, the legacy baggage that gets added will turn the noSQL databases into the same bloated monsters that the SQL databases have become. There was a time when many of the SQL database options were the (relatively) simpler and more powerful options vs the wide variety of home-grown databases they eventually replaced. (i.e. there was a lot of baked in business logic etc. that the move to SQL databases forced companies to disentangle from the database engine itself) SQL Server was originally just a fork of Sybase SQL Server (a much smaller, simpler version) with some FoxPro tech bolted on to it...
- DaiPlusPlus 8y agoRight - and FoxPro was just another dBase clone. NoSQL today is where dBase was 30 years ago.
- natmaka 8y agoA famous P. Greenspun quote may be savagely hacked for the topic at hand: Any sufficiently complicated No/New/WhateverSQL engine contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of a RDBMS.