3 ms·

But the technology encourages this type of behavior. And I am not speaking of hypothetical "can happen". I very recently had to deal with this precise issue. >

But the technology encourages this type of behavior. And I am not speaking of hypothetical "can happen". I very recently had to deal with this precise issue. > But really, please consider that many of us have, or are as we speak, losing loved ones to a deadly sickness which you have compared to a poor database implementation. Sorry for your loss. Use of the word for non-medical concerns is common. Mongo Metastasis works too. Again disagree regarding "poor database implementation". Trivializing the "database implementation" is precisely Mongo's value proposition and the very reason they got their market share.

htsh 6y ago
I agree that it is very easy to make bad decisions with this product, but I do not think it is unique to Mongo. And it is the role of a good architect or a good team lead to make sure that this does not happen or that developers do not go down these roads. I would even say the strengths that I have pointed out are precisely what makes it easier to take shortcuts. It gets out of your way, makes collections if they do not exist, allows for different document types in the same collections. It has no guard rails whatsoever. I think we are in agreement -- one needs to be very careful using this. You can use it and put yourself in a spot where you have to throw out your entire codebase. Well, me saying "can happen" does not mean it does not happen or that people have not seen it. It is saying the opposite. My point is it does not have to or that it does not always happen. Developers take shortcuts, often because they do not know better, and you are right that some products make it easier to go down these roads. I still do not think you want to use medical diseases as metaphors. You would not say "mongo aids" or "mongo alzheimers" or "mongo diabetes." Even if it is common, it is not particularly useful. Metastasis is better.
- eternalban 6y ago
  A happy conclusion. We're in general agreement.

htsh 6y ago

I agree that it is very easy to make bad decisions with this product, but I do not think it is unique to Mongo. And it is the role of a good architect or a good team lead to make sure that this does not happen or that developers do not go down these roads. I would even say the strengths that I have pointed out are precisely what makes it easier to take shortcuts. It gets out of your way, makes collections if they do not exist, allows for different document types in the same collections. It has no guard rails whatsoever. I think we are in agreement -- one needs to be very careful using this. You can use it and put yourself in a spot where you have to throw out your entire codebase. Well, me saying "can happen" does not mean it does not happen or that people have not seen it. It is saying the opposite. My point is it does not have to or that it does not always happen. Developers take shortcuts, often because they do not know better, and you are right that some products make it easier to go down these roads. I still do not think you want to use medical diseases as metaphors. You would not say "mongo aids" or "mongo alzheimers" or "mongo diabetes." Even if it is common, it is not particularly useful. Metastasis is better.

eternalban 6y ago
A happy conclusion. We're in general agreement.