volunteer@spatiallink.org writes:
> Relational database pioneer says technology is obsolete
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9034619
> kindlt explain how??
There are several spins relevant to this:
1. He's trying to sell His New Thing, and it certainly makes good
copy to say "your old stuff is obsolete - buy our new stuff!"
2. There are problems with SQL which cause many to want something
better.
The thing is, SQL isn't forcibly particularly "relational;"
there is a purist view which says that it definitely *isn't*.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDBMS#Current_Usage
They suggest that people interpret "relational" as implying:
- System supports having collections of tables
- System supports certain relational operators that work,
in some contexts, on these tables.
SQL provides that sort of thing, but is not as expressive as
people would like.
In effect, SQL has gotten hobbled so many ways over the years
that people seem to find it easier to say "relational ==
obsolete" than to try to explain that what they're trying to do
is perhaps *more* faithful to the theoretical relational model
than the existing products.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="linuxdatabases.info" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/nonrdbms.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #14. "The hero is not entitled to a last
kiss, a last cigarette, or any other form of last request."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
