> From: pgsql-general-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:pgsql-general- > This turns out to be true in many areas of language design, mutli-user system > security, virtually everything to do with networking, and application > deployment. I was at an IETF meeting some years ago where someone talking > about "Internet of Things" stuff was going on at length about how nobody > around the IETF really understood constrained systems. Standing behind him > at the mic was an assortment of grey-bearded men who'd worked directly on the > original IMPs (which were 16-bit Honeywells that ran at like 5MHz and had > IIRC 16Kwords of memory). Amen to that. I started on embedded systems that ran >1 usec cycle time and 16kb memory. Machine code, no assembler. But I never want to do that again -- be pleased someone does! > It's also true that crappy interfaces that are good enough stick around > anyway. The UNIX Haters' Handbook is full of evidence of how much less good > UNIX was, but even Apple gave in. Also, many of the historical compromises > turn out, once you start to try to make different ones, to be more obviously > defensible. Amen to that. Replacing SQL is easy when you look at SQL's faults, but not so easy when you realise its strengths. > Most of the NoSQL trend was not a hatred of SQL the language but > a carelessness about the relational syntax or a view that promises about > consistency are dumb. Then the first credit card number gets lost in an > eventually-consistent system, and people suddenly understand viscerally why > transactions semantics are so hard. But there is goodness there, and NoSQL is now just as hard to replace. Regards David M Bennett FACS Andl - A New Database Language - andl.org -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
