8 ms·

You lost me when you quoted the word "developers". Edit: And this is downvoted for calling out the fact that people on HN can't discuss a freakin' database wit

You lost me when you quoted the word "developers". Edit: And this is downvoted for calling out the fact that people on HN can't discuss a freakin' database without hurling insults.

timr 13y ago
I quoted "developers", because we need a term to distinguish people who know basic computer science from people who know just enough to install software and piece together APIs. The latter group tends not to realize that things like overwriting your working set in memory and global write-locking lead inevitably to consistency and throughput issues. The primary problem in software today is that we've confused the ability to build something with actually knowing anything of value.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  In the real world though, both groups still need to use what works in practice. It's entirely possible for MongoDB to work sufficiently well for a certain group of people in a reasonably cost effective way. Exaggerating its problems (as bad as they are) doesn't add weight to your agrement. For example, global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that. Lots of data problems aren't "big data", they're barely a medium. I'll agree MongoDB is not a terribly well engineered database however I don't agree that SQL is always the best alternative in these simpler scenarios. There are lots of things wrong with using SQL to solve every data problem. I also don't agree that knowing SQL is equivalent to understanding "set theory". I've known plenty of DBAs who don't know the first thing about set theory and really just know just enough to install the software and piece together the APIs. The fact that one has chosen SQL doesn't make them good at working with data any more than choosing MongoDB makes someone bad, or implies they don't understand "set theory". What concerns me mostly though isn't the MongoDB issue but that we can't discus the issue in a professional way, without elitism and distain dripping through. You seem to have confused "computer science" with "anything of value". I happen to believe there are more things worth knowing that are of value to practical software development than just the computer science (not to minimize that of course).
  - timr 13y ago
    "In the real world though, both groups still need use what works in practice." In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. "global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that" In which case, you can just as easily use a relational database and avoid the chance of problems altogether.
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      > In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. And they're a pain the ass and don't mix well with the kinds of programs many want to write. Mongo clearly fills a niche that relational databases don't serve well; if it didn't, no one would use it.
      - andrix 13y ago
        I think it's not a fight. RDBMS has been there for many years and they have proved to work in many areas. NoSQL databases born for new needs people was asking to have in their new projects. Both would probably works perfect for many cases, but nosql databases are very suitable for scenarios when you do not require an strict schema, and also they are simple to setup. I still think MongoDB is great for many applications as many companies are using it for their data needs (like Foresquare), and the same with RDBMS like MySQL, that lot of big fishes use them for different parts of their architecture (facebook, twitter, etc). In the end, each option has pros/cons, but one will be better for your use case.
      - papsosouid 13y ago
        Could you actually go into some detail about these mythical problems with actual databases? Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable, but I've never gotten an actual explanation as to what problems they are having. As both a developer and a sysadmin, postgresql is much less of a pain in the ass than mongodb. And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.
- raganwald 13y ago
  we've confused the ability to build something with actually knowing anything of value Am I reading this correctly? It seems to imply that the ability to build something is somehow orthogonal to knowledge of value. I don't know about throwing mud into a heap and then calling it sculpture, but if we are talking about the subset of "things" that have value in and of themselves, the ability to build them does imply some knowledge of value. Now, the relative value of knowing how to put together simple web sites using jQuery vs. the knowledge to discover Chaitin's Constant is very much worthy of discussion. But likewise, the knowledge of how to construct a true but unproveable statement in a toy system vs the knowledge of how to build VisiCalc and revolutionize programming is worthy of discussion as well.
  - timr 13y ago
    "Am I reading this correctly? It seems to imply that the ability to build something is somehow orthogonal to knowledge of value." Not only are you reading it correctly, that is in fact (part of) what I'm saying. Building something doesn't automatically create value. We've confused the two.
    - dvt 13y ago
      Orthogonality generally implies mutual exclusiveness (which I don't think is what you're trying to say).
      - timr 13y ago
        No, it doesn't. Orthogonal means "at right angles", or "independent". The latter meaning applies.
- wildster 13y ago
  This issue is well covered in Joel Spolsky's article The Perils of JavaSchools http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchool... Saying that I think it is a bit elitist to think you need a new term, who gets to say who can use that term?
- IdahoEv 13y ago
  OTOH, I've experienced a lot of people who know basic computer science but don't grasp any software engineering. Nor do they even realize that it's a thing. Those sorts of people tend to be very focussed on clever algorithms and data structures, and frequently miss the larger picture and coding best practices. I've seen far too much code that had extensive CS cleverness at the root but was spaghettified, untested, undocumented, poorly performant, and not even tracked in a version control system. Such people often don't value writing code that other developers can read and maintain. On a team, clarity matters more than cleverness. Good developers need both sets of skills.
- threeseed 13y ago
  Sorry but I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Write locking definitely leads to throughput issues but it results in better consistency not less.
bengillies 13y ago
> Edit: And this is downvoted for calling out the fact that people on HN can't discuss a freakin' database without hurling insults. The original comment you're replying to aside, it was likely because stating that you dismissed the entire comment without giving an actual objection to it added nothing at all to the discussion.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  Tone. Which is an actual objection.

You lost me when you quoted the word "developers". Edit: And this is downvoted for calling out the fact that people on HN can't discuss a freakin' database without hurling insults.

timr 13y ago

I quoted "developers", because we need a term to distinguish people who know basic computer science from people who know just enough to install software and piece together APIs. The latter group tends not to realize that things like overwriting your working set in memory and global write-locking lead inevitably to consistency and throughput issues. The primary problem in software today is that we've confused the ability to build something with actually knowing anything of value.

lucisferre 13y ago
In the real world though, both groups still need to use what works in practice. It's entirely possible for MongoDB to work sufficiently well for a certain group of people in a reasonably cost effective way. Exaggerating its problems (as bad as they are) doesn't add weight to your agrement. For example, global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that. Lots of data problems aren't "big data", they're barely a medium. I'll agree MongoDB is not a terribly well engineered database however I don't agree that SQL is always the best alternative in these simpler scenarios. There are lots of things wrong with using SQL to solve every data problem. I also don't agree that knowing SQL is equivalent to understanding "set theory". I've known plenty of DBAs who don't know the first thing about set theory and really just know just enough to install the software and piece together the APIs. The fact that one has chosen SQL doesn't make them good at working with data any more than choosing MongoDB makes someone bad, or implies they don't understand "set theory". What concerns me mostly though isn't the MongoDB issue but that we can't discus the issue in a professional way, without elitism and distain dripping through. You seem to have confused "computer science" with "anything of value". I happen to believe there are more things worth knowing that are of value to practical software development than just the computer science (not to minimize that of course).
- timr 13y ago
  "In the real world though, both groups still need use what works in practice." In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. "global write-locking will not _inevitably_ lead to consistency or throughput unless the write frequencies are sufficient to cause and require that" In which case, you can just as easily use a relational database and avoid the chance of problems altogether.
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    > In the real world, people have been using relational databases to solve problems for years. They work, they're understood, they scale. And they're a pain the ass and don't mix well with the kinds of programs many want to write. Mongo clearly fills a niche that relational databases don't serve well; if it didn't, no one would use it.
    - andrix 13y ago
      I think it's not a fight. RDBMS has been there for many years and they have proved to work in many areas. NoSQL databases born for new needs people was asking to have in their new projects. Both would probably works perfect for many cases, but nosql databases are very suitable for scenarios when you do not require an strict schema, and also they are simple to setup. I still think MongoDB is great for many applications as many companies are using it for their data needs (like Foresquare), and the same with RDBMS like MySQL, that lot of big fishes use them for different parts of their architecture (facebook, twitter, etc). In the end, each option has pros/cons, but one will be better for your use case.
    - papsosouid 13y ago
      Could you actually go into some detail about these mythical problems with actual databases? Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable, but I've never gotten an actual explanation as to what problems they are having. As both a developer and a sysadmin, postgresql is much less of a pain in the ass than mongodb. And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean. The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.
raganwald 13y ago
we've confused the ability to build something with actually knowing anything of value Am I reading this correctly? It seems to imply that the ability to build something is somehow orthogonal to knowledge of value. I don't know about throwing mud into a heap and then calling it sculpture, but if we are talking about the subset of "things" that have value in and of themselves, the ability to build them does imply some knowledge of value. Now, the relative value of knowing how to put together simple web sites using jQuery vs. the knowledge to discover Chaitin's Constant is very much worthy of discussion. But likewise, the knowledge of how to construct a true but unproveable statement in a toy system vs the knowledge of how to build VisiCalc and revolutionize programming is worthy of discussion as well.
- timr 13y ago
  "Am I reading this correctly? It seems to imply that the ability to build something is somehow orthogonal to knowledge of value." Not only are you reading it correctly, that is in fact (part of) what I'm saying. Building something doesn't automatically create value. We've confused the two.
  - dvt 13y ago
    Orthogonality generally implies mutual exclusiveness (which I don't think is what you're trying to say).
    - timr 13y ago
      No, it doesn't. Orthogonal means "at right angles", or "independent". The latter meaning applies.
wildster 13y ago
This issue is well covered in Joel Spolsky's article The Perils of JavaSchools http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchools.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/ThePerilsofJavaSchool... Saying that I think it is a bit elitist to think you need a new term, who gets to say who can use that term?
IdahoEv 13y ago
OTOH, I've experienced a lot of people who know basic computer science but don't grasp any software engineering. Nor do they even realize that it's a thing. Those sorts of people tend to be very focussed on clever algorithms and data structures, and frequently miss the larger picture and coding best practices. I've seen far too much code that had extensive CS cleverness at the root but was spaghettified, untested, undocumented, poorly performant, and not even tracked in a version control system. Such people often don't value writing code that other developers can read and maintain. On a team, clarity matters more than cleverness. Good developers need both sets of skills.
threeseed 13y ago
Sorry but I don't think you know what you're talking about here. Write locking definitely leads to throughput issues but it results in better consistency not less.

bengillies 13y ago

> Edit: And this is downvoted for calling out the fact that people on HN can't discuss a freakin' database without hurling insults. The original comment you're replying to aside, it was likely because stating that you dismissed the entire comment without giving an actual objection to it added nothing at all to the discussion.

lucisferre 13y ago
Tone. Which is an actual objection.