On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:17, Chris Browne wrote: > smarlowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Scott Marlowe) writes: > > To me, the real argument is, "Is SQL so lacking that it should be > > replaced". In what REAL measurable ways is SQL lacking so badly we > > should toss it and start over? It's not perfect, that's for sure. > > But what's the investment on starting over, and the possible > > traction of a non-SQL database in a largely SQL driven market? > > The only visible alternative, at this point, is Tutorial D, and it > doesn't particularly excite me... On the other hand, it's nice to know it's dragged down by a moniker even more awkward than PostgreSQL's! Honestly, Tutorial D does not make me think database. It makes me think Calculus help line.
