4 ms·
Yes, but by that definition every group of bits on a computer is a database. The word sort of loses any value. I mean a HN comment is also a database, a text i
by hjk05 7y ago
Yes, but by that definition every group of bits on a computer is a database. The word sort of loses any value.
I mean a HN comment is also a database, a text is a database, a picture of rocks arranger i the shape of names is a database.
In the world of stupid internet arguments, sure we can agree you are right txtfiles are database, .wav files are database, everything is a database. Talk this way about it at a job interview and you’ll get cut by your second sentence
- msiyer 7y agoI understand what you say. I mostly agree, but just wanted to push the semantics to the limit ;) >> Yes, but by that definition every group of bits on a computer is a database. The word sort of loses any value. Not exactly. We need to define the atomicity we would like to deal with. That is: - if a bit is what the atomic unit of data is, then a byte is a database - if a byte is what the atomic unit of data is, then a collection of bytes in properly defined structure is a database. For example, a JPEG file or little-endian or big-endian datatypes. >> I mean a HN comment is also a database, a text is a database, a picture of rocks arranger i the shape of names is a database. If a word is the atomic unit, then a comment can be a database. If the comment itself is an atomic unit, then the thread can be a database.