41–50 of 59 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole idea with "NoSQL" is that you pick the best tool for the job. Stop it. You're doing it again. The whole idea of "Computer Programming" is that you pick the best tool for the job. It has nothing to do with NoSQL.
NoSQL is primarily a reaction to the ubiquitousness of relational DBs. It's providing another tool aside from a hammer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
NoSQL is primarily a reaction to the ubiquitousness of relational DBs. It's providing another tool aside from a hammer.
Ubiquity
Though I admit it's shorter, thus may eventually achieve ubiquity over ubiquitousness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this, but I'd add that we developers tend to make an RDBMS do everything because it's what they're familiar with. NoSQL is an alternative to solve a specific problem, but you can't see that problem if you're ignorant of it. It's like my experience with SVN vs Git. I didn't know how useful and more efficient my workflow would be if I used branches, so I never saw why Git was useful. Sure I could branch in…
The same argument about branches in source control can made about SQL itself. In my opinion, a large number of developers don't know how to code SQL properly and a lot are afraid of it. They end up using an RDBMS as nothing more than a dumb bit bucket -- often hidden behind increasingly complex abstractions. The NoSQL movement, unintentionally, lets these programmers feel superior about their lack of knowledge. I don…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually think this says something interesting about .NET v.s. open source platforms. The new batch of NoSQL products are being developed almost exclusively in the open source world - they're written to run on *nix (Windows support, if it exists at all, is generally an after thought) and the client libraries that ship with them target the open source languages first. In this particular case, it feels like closed-so…
Then this new holy war boils down to an good old *nix vs windows holy war, or open-source vs closed applications.
The whole idea with "NoSQL" is that you pick the best tool for the job. Most people that push RDBMS solutions try to shoehorn an RDBMS for every possible scenario. For modeling the majority of business data, an RDBMS is fine. There are many problems such as graphs, logs, lossy real-time data, etc that CAN be modeled in an RDBMS but shouldn't be.
That's true of Java, garbage collection, FPGAs, and every other type of computer technology.
It may be a consequence of turing completeness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubiquity
Both are in nearly every dictionary around. And given the base of "ubiquitous", I prefer adding a "ness" to denote a quality, which is extremely common in English and can even be applied to words that don't normally accept it, so it's an easy cognate. Something being cheesy == has cheesiness. "Ubiquity" is more of a hacked form of a word, as it removes from the base word. Though I admit it's shorter, thus may eventua…
NoSQL is designed to address a certain problem space and RDBMS is designed to address another. I don't see it that way at all. It's more like RDBMS is the all-purpose data store that attempts to distill the maximum number conceivable data storage, integrity constraints and lookup requirements into a set of powerful primitives. And NoSQL is a large group of technologies that are each optimized for specific cases which…
I agree with this, but I'd add that we developers tend to make an RDBMS do everything because it's what they're familiar with. NoSQL is an alternative to solve a specific problem, but you can't see that problem if you're ignorant of it. It's like my experience with SVN vs Git. I didn't know how useful and more efficient my workflow would be if I used branches, so I never saw why Git was useful. Sure I could branch in…
An excellent comparative case in point that in my opinion actually undercuts what you are asserting.
You do not lose features and functionality in that transition (where as noSQL is by design reductive), and further, Git is a replacement for SVN and not a complementary tool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Crusades were the worst holy war ever. There. Problem solved. Unless you wanna kill a few hundred thousand people and go to war for a few hundred years. (If I'd said "The holocaust", I could've Godwinned this thread, but that wasn't really a holy war.)
Interesting... how were the Crusades larger/worse than the muslim expansion all the way to Spain/Balkan/India? (Let us bunch the Crusades as one single example, at least for this argument.) (The Huns/Mongols were religiously tolerant and motivated by conquest, right?)