3 ms·

Actually, I think that's a great way to think about it: NoSQL is the "dynamic typing" of the database world. Put another way, it's like "what? you couldn't spe

Actually, I think that's a great way to think about it: NoSQL is the "dynamic typing" of the database world. Put another way, it's like "what? you couldn't spend 10 minutes declaring types everywhere?" - yeah, it's less robust, yet dynamically typed languages remain popular. My excuse: When I'm just past the mock stage, and still playing with what UI functionality should be, sometimes I just want to get some JSON persisted. I'm changing the shape of the data a lot, discovering the schema as I build. The persistence is frankly a technical nuisance I wish I didn't have to think about. Sometimes, the result is "good enough" and I don't need to go through the ceremony of glueing in an ORM.

joslin01 12y ago
I read this article and was just like "ya. types are important" and reflected on how I used to love Ruby, but now swear against it for serious projects. Glad to see I'm not the only one who made the analogy in their heads. Right now though, I have to write a script to pull some crap out of an Excel file and into my database. I use Scala with the Play framework, but what a nightmare getting typed information out of an Excel sheet is. No thanks, I'll just pull it out magically with Ruby and construct the JSON requests to my real server to create the data. It's a smart business decision and I would defend it all day. I'm sure there's corollaries for "dynamic databases" such as MongoDB. To be clear though, I'm with the grandparent. I really think decisions for MongoDB are made out of a combination of laziness and eagerness most of the time. I mean honestly, if your data is going to be relatable, why would you employ a scheme that forces you to make those relationships manually? So you go to a relational databases which ironically lacks relationships, but hey there's plenty of support and libraries that will do it for you. But really if you had to ask me my personal opinion? Graph databases where relationships are FIRST CLASS CITIZENS are typically the best for serious projects containing lots of relationships.
alttab 12y ago
Your given excuse makes you sound more like a naive amateur instead of a pragmatic architect
- asmosoinio 12y ago
  Just in case GP cares: To me it did not sound like this at all. I think making prototypes and starting to build the thing is the key to getting to a good architecture.
hueving 12y ago
The difference there is that you enter types for thousands of lines of code. OTOH a schema is changed relatively infrequently. Maybe a few times a day during really experimental stuff.

joslin01 12y ago

I read this article and was just like "ya. types are important" and reflected on how I used to love Ruby, but now swear against it for serious projects. Glad to see I'm not the only one who made the analogy in their heads. Right now though, I have to write a script to pull some crap out of an Excel file and into my database. I use Scala with the Play framework, but what a nightmare getting typed information out of an Excel sheet is. No thanks, I'll just pull it out magically with Ruby and construct the JSON requests to my real server to create the data. It's a smart business decision and I would defend it all day. I'm sure there's corollaries for "dynamic databases" such as MongoDB. To be clear though, I'm with the grandparent. I really think decisions for MongoDB are made out of a combination of laziness and eagerness most of the time. I mean honestly, if your data is going to be relatable, why would you employ a scheme that forces you to make those relationships manually? So you go to a relational databases which ironically lacks relationships, but hey there's plenty of support and libraries that will do it for you. But really if you had to ask me my personal opinion? Graph databases where relationships are FIRST CLASS CITIZENS are typically the best for serious projects containing lots of relationships.

alttab 12y ago

Your given excuse makes you sound more like a naive amateur instead of a pragmatic architect

asmosoinio 12y ago
Just in case GP cares: To me it did not sound like this at all. I think making prototypes and starting to build the thing is the key to getting to a good architecture.

hueving 12y ago

The difference there is that you enter types for thousands of lines of code. OTOH a schema is changed relatively infrequently. Maybe a few times a day during really experimental stuff.