4 ms·
"Pretty much the standard"? uh... again I have not dug into this at all, but it doesn't look SQL compliant and I would have no idea what limitations I was up ag
by noduerme 5y ago
"Pretty much the standard"? uh... again I have not dug into this at all, but it doesn't look SQL compliant and I would have no idea what limitations I was up against in terms of consistency, locks, foreign key relations, etc. I didn't know it was developed by Apple (but that's definitely not a sales pitch for channeling outside resources into something; so was Objective C, and no one on earth would have ever used it if it weren't required at a certain point to build iOS native apps)
- atdrummond 5y agoFWIW Apple acquired the firm, so the "built for Apple/Mac OS X" peculiarities aren't there.
- karmakaze 5y ago> Objective C was the choice of some very bright folks at NeXT. It's also where all the NSThing (NS is NeXTSTEP) and *Kit naming patterns come from.
- adastra22 5y agoFoundationDB's not a SQL DBMS. It's an ordered key-value datastore with a shared-nothing architecture. Totally different application domain. It wasn't developed by Apple, but Apple did acquire the company that developed it, and they've open sourced it and done a good job of maintaining it. Apple clearly uses FoundationDB inside their production hosting environment, although I don't know if exact details are known. The point is it is stable and reliable enough to power things like the iOS App Store backend (we think--there's a bit of guess work as to how they use it internally).