3 ms·

I was there and I don't remember it like you describe. MySQL was certainly not a toy database in 2002. I learned PHP from a book called "PHP and MySQL". They we

by junon 5y ago

I was there and I don't remember it like you describe. MySQL was certainly not a toy database in 2002. I learned PHP from a book called "PHP and MySQL". They went together like white on rice. Every forum software used it. Hell, even today Uber uses MySQL at a VERY large scale to power their schemaless database.

pgeorgi 5y ago
I was there, too, and I wasn't alone in my assessment: https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2210771/MySQL--Yesterdays-Toy-Tomorrows-Contender.htm https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2... (to pick a contemporary example using that exact word) suggests that the 2003 release of mysql4 ends the "toy status". Others might have had different thresholds, but that reputation was hard earned and back then still pretty apropos (to a declining degree over time because MySQL caught up). I lost data to MySQL more than once (if memory serves but it's been a while: MyISAM was a mess, the InnoDB integration not ready yet) To handwave two extreme positions of those days (because I'm too lazy to look up ancient forums where such stuff has been discussed at length), it's very possible that different groups approached things differently: Members of a PHP User Group probably didn't consider MySQL a toy but the best thing since sliced bread, given how closely aligned PHP was to MySQL back then (it got more varied over time, but that preference can still be felt in PHP projects) OTOH when you had a significant amount of perl coders in your peer group, it was rather likely that some of them could go on for days about how _both_ PHP and MySQL are toys when anybody dared to talk about PHP (which ties in neatly with the original post and its reference about "The One") [bonus: more recent example: http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-toy-database http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-t...]

by junon 5y ago

pgeorgi 5y ago

I was there, too, and I wasn't alone in my assessment: https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2210771/MySQL--Yesterdays-Toy-Tomorrows-Contender.htm https://www.databasejournal.com/features/mysql/article.php/2... (to pick a contemporary example using that exact word) suggests that the 2003 release of mysql4 ends the "toy status". Others might have had different thresholds, but that reputation was hard earned and back then still pretty apropos (to a declining degree over time because MySQL caught up). I lost data to MySQL more than once (if memory serves but it's been a while: MyISAM was a mess, the InnoDB integration not ready yet) To handwave two extreme positions of those days (because I'm too lazy to look up ancient forums where such stuff has been discussed at length), it's very possible that different groups approached things differently: Members of a PHP User Group probably didn't consider MySQL a toy but the best thing since sliced bread, given how closely aligned PHP was to MySQL back then (it got more varied over time, but that preference can still be felt in PHP projects) OTOH when you had a significant amount of perl coders in your peer group, it was rather likely that some of them could go on for days about how _both_ PHP and MySQL are toys when anybody dared to talk about PHP (which ties in neatly with the original post and its reference about "The One") [bonus: more recent example: http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-toy-database http://www.backwardcompatible.net/145-Why-is-MySQL-still-a-t...]