3 ms·

Saying that someone lacks understanding of a subject is not an ad-hominem attack. You are correct that I didn't justify my point of view, but then nor did the a

Saying that someone lacks understanding of a subject is not an ad-hominem attack. You are correct that I didn't justify my point of view, but then nor did the author of the article. Let's examine his claims: "The proponents of NoSQL aren't even aware of how they are repeating history by recreating the hierarchical databases of yore." Says who? The author doesn't bother justifying this statement, he just throws it out there. It's completely baseless, and likely a straw-man argument (as I have a hard time believing that everyone at Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other large cloud companies are completely clueless about database history). "E.F. Codd was explicitly trying to rectify these mistakes when he formulated relational database theory 40 years ago" This sounds a little more plausible, but which mistakes is he talking about? And when did Codd say this? Citation, please! "and now we've come so far along that we've wrapped around and apparently must re-learn these mistakes a second time" Which mistakes exactly? Don't make me guess! "The morons promoting this technology have no clue" Ad-hominem attack. Let's move on. "they see themselves as the new sheriffs in town, putting their scalability law above all else." Finally we learn his beef with NoSQL databases, but he fails to justify his argument any more than this. There are strong reasons for putting scalability above other concerns. The scalability of S3 matters far more to me than whether updates are atomic, for instance. Frankly, I'm confused why you think "his argument is strong". His argument consists of unjustified statements, straw men, and ad-hominem attacks. There's utterly no substance to it.

agentultra 15y ago
I agree with pretty much everything you say here. In your original comment you said, The author seems to have the attitude of "I don't understand why people do X, therefore people who do X are morons." Which doesn't add anything to the discussion of this article. It's simply an ad-hominem and nothing else. Where as the author provided reasons why he thought the people behind modern NoSQL systems are morons. So even though he used an insult he made it clear why he was using it (even if his argument was weak). Now that you've explained your position it makes a lot more sense. However I never did say whether I agree with the author or not. I'm still curious as to whether the author might have a point despite how poorly constructed his argument is. You made some really interesting points that I'm probably going to follow up on. What were these 'mistakes' that the author keeps referring to? What was the motivation for the invention of the RDBMS? How similar are NoSQL systems today to the systems which the RDBMS was supposedly invented to replace?
- weavejester 15y ago
  It is not an ad hominem attack to suggest that someone doesn't understand the subject matter. An ad hominem argument is an attempt to win an argument by making claims about the person's character that are irrelevant to the argument. Saying, "I don't think this person understands what he is talking about," is not an ad hominem attack, because it is relevant to the argument. It might be unjustified, but that's another matter entirely. Apparently, since I just looked this up, calling someone a moron isn't an ad hominem attack either, but merely verbal abuse, so I retract my earlier statement where I accused the author of an ad hominem attack. As to whether the author has a point, he might do, but unless he puts forward a good argument we can only wonder.
batista 15y ago
"The proponents of NoSQL aren't even aware of how they are repeating history by recreating the hierarchical databases of yore." > Says who? The author doesn't bother justifying this statement, he just throws it out there. It's completely baseless, and likely a straw-man argument (as I have a hard time believing that everyone at Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other large cloud companies are completely clueless about database history). For one, he doesn't need to "justify the statement". It's a HISTORICAL argument. So take a computing history book and look for the "hierarchical databases". You'll find them easily. Check how and if they are alike to current NoSQL databases. (Actually he not only justifies the argument, but he goes on to talk about Codd). The second part of your argument, "I have a hard time believing that everyone at Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other large cloud companies are completely clueless about database history" is an argument by authority: "surely because they are big companies they should know what they are doing". Well, big companies do idiotic stuff too, all the time. Remember how all those big companies agreed on the SOAP fiasco? Or the CORBA fiasco before that? Or how IBM, SUN, Oracle touted EJB 2? I do. "E.F. Codd was explicitly trying to rectify these mistakes when he formulated relational database theory 40 years ago" > This sounds a little more plausible, but which mistakes is he talking about? And when did Codd say this? Citation, please! And what are those databases? And SQL? What is a computer? At some point you assume your readers do their work. It's not as if Code is some mysterious figure, and the things the relational theory solves (and proves mathematically) are lost in legend. This is database theory 101, no citation needed. Now, if you are not a Computer Scientist, then the article is not meant for you, anyway.
- weavejester 15y ago
  "For one, he doesn't need to "justify the statement". It's a HISTORICAL argument." No, it is not. The author claims that the proponents of NoSQL are unaware they are repeating history. It's not an argument over history, it's an argument over what a certain group of people know. "So take a computing history book and look for the "hierarchical databases". You'll find them easily. Check how and if they are alike to current NoSQL databases." Irrelevant. The point is not whether hierarchical databases are alike to current NoSQL databases, but whether or not the proponents of NoSQL are aware of past database designs. Nor is it a "argument by authority" to suggest that the author's statement needs to be justified. The author is claiming that everyone who designs or promotes NoSQL databases has less understanding about databases that a first year CompSci student. This is not an argument from authority, but an argument about authority. "At some point you assume your readers do their work. It's not as if Code is some mysterious figure, and the things the relational theory solves" Again, you valiantly miss my point. The question is not whether Codd invented the relational model, but whether he "was explicitly trying to rectify these mistakes" (whatever "these mistakes" are; the author never explains). The relational model has its advantages, but it's not a silver bullet, and understanding the limitations of a model or algorithm is just as important, if not more so, than understanding its advantages. Codd would understand the limitations of the model he devised more than anyone. Computer science is all about finding the right tools for the job. Codd added a useful tool to our collective toolbox, but it's not the only tool we have available. Nor are hierarchical databases inherently inferior to relational databases; sometimes a hierarchy is exactly what you want. A lot of websites, including Hacker News, would fit the hierarchical model better than the relational model. "Now, if you are not a Computer Scientist, then the article is not meant for you, anyway." It's painfully clear the article is not meant for computer scientists of any calibre.

agentultra 15y ago

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. In your original comment you said, The author seems to have the attitude of "I don't understand why people do X, therefore people who do X are morons." Which doesn't add anything to the discussion of this article. It's simply an ad-hominem and nothing else. Where as the author provided reasons why he thought the people behind modern NoSQL systems are morons. So even though he used an insult he made it clear why he was using it (even if his argument was weak). Now that you've explained your position it makes a lot more sense. However I never did say whether I agree with the author or not. I'm still curious as to whether the author might have a point despite how poorly constructed his argument is. You made some really interesting points that I'm probably going to follow up on. What were these 'mistakes' that the author keeps referring to? What was the motivation for the invention of the RDBMS? How similar are NoSQL systems today to the systems which the RDBMS was supposedly invented to replace?

weavejester 15y ago
It is not an ad hominem attack to suggest that someone doesn't understand the subject matter. An ad hominem argument is an attempt to win an argument by making claims about the person's character that are irrelevant to the argument. Saying, "I don't think this person understands what he is talking about," is not an ad hominem attack, because it is relevant to the argument. It might be unjustified, but that's another matter entirely. Apparently, since I just looked this up, calling someone a moron isn't an ad hominem attack either, but merely verbal abuse, so I retract my earlier statement where I accused the author of an ad hominem attack. As to whether the author has a point, he might do, but unless he puts forward a good argument we can only wonder.

batista 15y ago

"The proponents of NoSQL aren't even aware of how they are repeating history by recreating the hierarchical databases of yore." > Says who? The author doesn't bother justifying this statement, he just throws it out there. It's completely baseless, and likely a straw-man argument (as I have a hard time believing that everyone at Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other large cloud companies are completely clueless about database history). For one, he doesn't need to "justify the statement". It's a HISTORICAL argument. So take a computing history book and look for the "hierarchical databases". You'll find them easily. Check how and if they are alike to current NoSQL databases. (Actually he not only justifies the argument, but he goes on to talk about Codd). The second part of your argument, "I have a hard time believing that everyone at Google, Facebook, Twitter and all the other large cloud companies are completely clueless about database history" is an argument by authority: "surely because they are big companies they should know what they are doing". Well, big companies do idiotic stuff too, all the time. Remember how all those big companies agreed on the SOAP fiasco? Or the CORBA fiasco before that? Or how IBM, SUN, Oracle touted EJB 2? I do. "E.F. Codd was explicitly trying to rectify these mistakes when he formulated relational database theory 40 years ago" > This sounds a little more plausible, but which mistakes is he talking about? And when did Codd say this? Citation, please! And what are those databases? And SQL? What is a computer? At some point you assume your readers do their work. It's not as if Code is some mysterious figure, and the things the relational theory solves (and proves mathematically) are lost in legend. This is database theory 101, no citation needed. Now, if you are not a Computer Scientist, then the article is not meant for you, anyway.

weavejester 15y ago
"For one, he doesn't need to "justify the statement". It's a HISTORICAL argument." No, it is not. The author claims that the proponents of NoSQL are unaware they are repeating history. It's not an argument over history, it's an argument over what a certain group of people know. "So take a computing history book and look for the "hierarchical databases". You'll find them easily. Check how and if they are alike to current NoSQL databases." Irrelevant. The point is not whether hierarchical databases are alike to current NoSQL databases, but whether or not the proponents of NoSQL are aware of past database designs. Nor is it a "argument by authority" to suggest that the author's statement needs to be justified. The author is claiming that everyone who designs or promotes NoSQL databases has less understanding about databases that a first year CompSci student. This is not an argument from authority, but an argument about authority. "At some point you assume your readers do their work. It's not as if Code is some mysterious figure, and the things the relational theory solves" Again, you valiantly miss my point. The question is not whether Codd invented the relational model, but whether he "was explicitly trying to rectify these mistakes" (whatever "these mistakes" are; the author never explains). The relational model has its advantages, but it's not a silver bullet, and understanding the limitations of a model or algorithm is just as important, if not more so, than understanding its advantages. Codd would understand the limitations of the model he devised more than anyone. Computer science is all about finding the right tools for the job. Codd added a useful tool to our collective toolbox, but it's not the only tool we have available. Nor are hierarchical databases inherently inferior to relational databases; sometimes a hierarchy is exactly what you want. A lot of websites, including Hacker News, would fit the hierarchical model better than the relational model. "Now, if you are not a Computer Scientist, then the article is not meant for you, anyway." It's painfully clear the article is not meant for computer scientists of any calibre.