3 ms·
Precisely this. Every “solution” I’ve seen approaches RDBMS as an obviously incorrect kludge that must be done away with in the name of DX. RDBMS hasn’t stuck
by sgarland 3y ago
Precisely this. Every “solution” I’ve seen approaches RDBMS as an obviously incorrect kludge that must be done away with in the name of DX.
RDBMS hasn’t stuck around this long only because it’s good enough. It’s an incredibly powerful way to model data, for now and the future, but yes, it does require you to think carefully and slow down. These are not things to be avoided.
- cmrdporcupine 3y agoYes, the core of the problem with people "getting it" has always been that SQL has been so mediocre, and yet it's the only serious option people have. And so people go looking for something with a modern syntax, that's properly composable, functional, etc. but because they haven't studied the foundations, they reinvent the wheel badly. The Codd paper is so readable, and so persuasive. People need to start there, and then argue why their novel approach is better on first principles, not just because it smells better than SQL. But that it's stuck around and done so well for so long tells you that the core foundation is sound.
- HelloNurse 3y agoAt the beginning of the article, the "relational" database is described as a particular architecture ("map of maps, with secondary indexes being additional maps") without recognizing that the other given examples ("key/value", "document" and "column-oriented") are also relational and the differences are only, at worst, performance tradeoffs. The more I read it the less it makes sense.