3 ms·

> And I'm comfortable saying that most nontrivial business applications are fundamentally relational. Now try to assess, how many applications are supposed to

by sklogic 12y ago

> And I'm comfortable saying that most nontrivial business applications are fundamentally relational. Now try to assess, how many applications are supposed to be "nontrivial business applications". It's quite a niche thing, and that's where all this DBMS stuff belongs to. Please do not impose this crap on the rest of the world, we don't need your CRUD.

eropple 12y ago
Why are you so randomly hostile about this? Your tone and attitude are super shitty throughout this thread. Chill. As for CRUD--I'm a platform and devops engineer. I'm not a web developer (except incidentally). But I do often write relational things--like, say, "I have this node, running this application, using this artifact from that data store"--that are best modeled by a relational data store. They're otherwise trivial applications, but reinventing the relational data store would take orders of magnitude longer than writing the application against SQLite or Postgres. How do you propose to model relations across the file system in a way that doesn't make it the tail wagging the dog? While I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty comfortable going further than "nontrivial business applications" to "a majority of networked applications". The world is relational. Modeling it relationally makes a lot of sense for a lot of use cases.
- sklogic 12y ago
  No, it's RDBMS proponents who are hostile. Their attitude is "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile, we already won, so shut up and obey". This cannot and will not be tolerated. I was pressured many times into giving up doing things the right way and adopting RDBMSes, and that was not pleasant at all. In some cases someone else who picked up that projects tried to move to RDBMSes (from hierarchical or document-oriented storages used before) and failed miserably. So, again, I never came across anything that would need a relational storage. Not even when I was doing heavily distributed HPC (which is as "networked" as it gets). Yes, of course I did a lot of things that are relational naturally - but all of them were in Datalog, with no storage required. Btw., wtf is "devops"? I've heard this a number of times recently, but nobody could explain the meaning.
  - eropple 12y ago
    Your anecdotes are interesting, but they don't present anything substantiative with regards to this discussion that merits this spittle-flecking you're trotting out here. Nobody's telling you to not do as you feel is right, at least not around here--what you describe isn't happening in this thread. You're being strangely aggressive and hostile just at the idea of using a relational data store to store relational data and I have no idea why. As far as devops go, the lack of a solid term is why I use the term "platform engineering" for what I do. I build things to make other developers more productive and systems more responsive and scalable.
    - sklogic 12y ago
      Wait a minute. Cult of Codd is proclaiming that everything is relational and everyone should always use RDMBS, and if they don't, they're doing it wrong and wasting their time. OP went even further with claims that RDBMSes cover pretty much everything in the CS. If it's not an aggressive cult, I don't know what else could be more aggressive. I'm ok with using RDBMS for storing relational data, everything has its niche and every tool could be used efficiently when needed. What I'm not ok with is when cultists try to force everyone else to use their precious hammer everywhere, for every little nail. I'm not ok when I'm told that if I did not use RDBMSes I did not do any large scale data analysis.

by sklogic 12y ago

eropple 12y ago

Why are you so randomly hostile about this? Your tone and attitude are super shitty throughout this thread. Chill. As for CRUD--I'm a platform and devops engineer. I'm not a web developer (except incidentally). But I do often write relational things--like, say, "I have this node, running this application, using this artifact from that data store"--that are best modeled by a relational data store. They're otherwise trivial applications, but reinventing the relational data store would take orders of magnitude longer than writing the application against SQLite or Postgres. How do you propose to model relations across the file system in a way that doesn't make it the tail wagging the dog? While I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty comfortable going further than "nontrivial business applications" to "a majority of networked applications". The world is relational. Modeling it relationally makes a lot of sense for a lot of use cases.

sklogic 12y ago
No, it's RDBMS proponents who are hostile. Their attitude is "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile, we already won, so shut up and obey". This cannot and will not be tolerated. I was pressured many times into giving up doing things the right way and adopting RDBMSes, and that was not pleasant at all. In some cases someone else who picked up that projects tried to move to RDBMSes (from hierarchical or document-oriented storages used before) and failed miserably. So, again, I never came across anything that would need a relational storage. Not even when I was doing heavily distributed HPC (which is as "networked" as it gets). Yes, of course I did a lot of things that are relational naturally - but all of them were in Datalog, with no storage required. Btw., wtf is "devops"? I've heard this a number of times recently, but nobody could explain the meaning.
- eropple 12y ago
  Your anecdotes are interesting, but they don't present anything substantiative with regards to this discussion that merits this spittle-flecking you're trotting out here. Nobody's telling you to not do as you feel is right, at least not around here--what you describe isn't happening in this thread. You're being strangely aggressive and hostile just at the idea of using a relational data store to store relational data and I have no idea why. As far as devops go, the lack of a solid term is why I use the term "platform engineering" for what I do. I build things to make other developers more productive and systems more responsive and scalable.
  - sklogic 12y ago
    Wait a minute. Cult of Codd is proclaiming that everything is relational and everyone should always use RDMBS, and if they don't, they're doing it wrong and wasting their time. OP went even further with claims that RDBMSes cover pretty much everything in the CS. If it's not an aggressive cult, I don't know what else could be more aggressive. I'm ok with using RDBMS for storing relational data, everything has its niche and every tool could be used efficiently when needed. What I'm not ok with is when cultists try to force everyone else to use their precious hammer everywhere, for every little nail. I'm not ok when I'm told that if I did not use RDBMSes I did not do any large scale data analysis.