3 ms·

I think you're being overly pedantic – or maybe deliberately obtuse. I can't tell. In discussions of "NoSQL" technologies, it's common to use SQL as a shorthan

I think you're being overly pedantic – or maybe deliberately obtuse. I can't tell. In discussions of "NoSQL" technologies, it's common to use SQL as a shorthand for traditional, relational databases which generally support SQL. We're talking about databases like MySQL, Oracle, Postgres, MS SQL Server, etc. Sure, Andrew could have been more precise with this language, but from the context, do you honestly think he's using SQL to mean specifically Structured Query Language, the 4G language developed in the 70's?

altcognito 11y ago
Is it "overly" pedantic when making broad criticism of a given technology to at least be using the word that identifies said technology? RDBS is really common way to identify this class of products.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  You know what. I think you're right. It's not overly pedantic to say that the article shouldn't use SQL to mean RDBS – or RDBMS, as I see it more commonly. My comment was specifically in response to your approach, not your overall point: > What does that even mean? SQL is a wire protocol for relational queries. First, if we're being pedantic, I disagree with your usage of "wire protocol" to describe the SQL language, but I get what you're saying. What I was trying to comment on was your feigned confusion. It was perfectly clear to me what the author meant by "SQL" in the context of the article, and I think you understood too. If you had said something like, "SQL is a language and bad term to describe Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS), which is what the author really meant," I wouldn't have commented. I probably would have upvoted actually, because I agree. Anyway, not a big deal, I don't think we're in conflict with the substance of your point, just how you chose to express it in this one example. Have a great day. :)

3 ms·

I think you're being overly pedantic – or maybe deliberately obtuse. I can't tell. In discussions of "NoSQL" technologies, it's common to use SQL as a shorthan

by Tenhundfeld 11y ago

altcognito 11y ago
Is it "overly" pedantic when making broad criticism of a given technology to at least be using the word that identifies said technology? RDBS is really common way to identify this class of products.
- Tenhundfeld 11y ago
  You know what. I think you're right. It's not overly pedantic to say that the article shouldn't use SQL to mean RDBS – or RDBMS, as I see it more commonly. My comment was specifically in response to your approach, not your overall point: > What does that even mean? SQL is a wire protocol for relational queries. First, if we're being pedantic, I disagree with your usage of "wire protocol" to describe the SQL language, but I get what you're saying. What I was trying to comment on was your feigned confusion. It was perfectly clear to me what the author meant by "SQL" in the context of the article, and I think you understood too. If you had said something like, "SQL is a language and bad term to describe Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS), which is what the author really meant," I wouldn't have commented. I probably would have upvoted actually, because I agree. Anyway, not a big deal, I don't think we're in conflict with the substance of your point, just how you chose to express it in this one example. Have a great day. :)