3 ms·
So, apparently "SQL Databases" are harmful, and a less harmful alternative would be to use "plain old hierarchical filesystems". Sure, why not?
by andrea_s 13y ago
So, apparently "SQL Databases" are harmful, and a less harmful alternative would be to use "plain old hierarchical filesystems".
Sure, why not?
- kelseyfrancis 13y agoEqually asinine: "plain old tarballs would be better than svn".
- parasubvert 13y agoThat's something Linus Torvalds has effectively said as well, so it's not as asinine as you might think. Unduly harsh perhaps.
- jack9 13y agoI have no problem pointing out how illogical that is. I can create commits in CVS that can disappear from the history altogether as a matter of course. Unsuitable for version control. Tarballs have a larger footprint than SVN diffs. For non-trivial products, repository size matters. They are both just wrong on the SVN hate. Git is better, but that's irrelevant as a technical argument.
- parasubvert 13y agoHe does at least put down Tutorial D as an alternative to SQL, which is Chris Date's relational language. The issue is not the relational model, which is pretty simple and powerful. The issue is that SQL reflects a more complicated multi-set multi-valued logical model.
- lloeki 13y agoWhy not indeed. Many times all that is required is a few files written to /tmp atomically mv'd in place. Also, see git's design[0] and how it makes operations like fetch/push completely trivial. Also, how redis reliably dumps and appends. [0]: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals