> > On Friday, October 19, 2012 1:02:40 PM UTC+1, Roy Hann wrote:
> >> There is no point comparing SQL and NoSQL. You might as well compare
> >> geometry and singing .
> > Oh, I agree.
> > You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
> be had.
I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is raging right now in both academia and industry. Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
> Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
>> rh wrote:
>>> On Friday, October 19, 2012 1:02:40 PM UTC+1, Roy Hann wrote:
>> >> There is no point comparing SQL and NoSQL. You might as well compare
>> >> geometry and singing .
>>> Oh, I agree.
>>> You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
>> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
>> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
>> be had.
(=> Roy)
I do not think you have interpreted it properly. I took it to be
pointing out that there was no real debate because one side had no
arguments and all the other side could do was become more and more
exasperated.
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and
> it is raging right now in both academia and industry. Unless the
> relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their
> usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims
> of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
Of course I cannot claim that any group is entirely free of arrogance,
but I suspect that much of what you call arrogance is actually just
exasperation, as seen in the video. I also suspect that much of the
"raging discussion" is about as sensible as the argument in the video.
Jan Hidders <hidd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
> > counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate
> > even to be had.
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is
> raging right now in both academia and industry.
In academia? Et tu, Brute?
I am curious to know: What do you consider the very strongest argument
by the no-SQL folks? I have never seen one that didn't exhibit perfect
innocence of reational theory.
> Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to
> contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful
> about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
Well. The relationalists have been losing the argument for 30 years.
Ignorance outpaces knowledge in every generation, and the ratio of
programmers to DBAs is at least 10:1, assuring who'll win the voice
vote.
The only thing that's kept the RM afloat in this stormy sea is that its
sturdy construction allows it to continue to work, no matter how abused
or perverted.
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 07:55:25 -0700 (PDT)
> Jan Hidders<hidd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
>>> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate
>>> even to be had.
>> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is
>> raging right now in both academia and industry.
> In academia? Et tu, Brute?
> I am curious to know: What do you consider the very strongest argument
> by the no-SQL folks? I have never seen one that didn't exhibit perfect
> innocence of reational theory.
>> Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to
>> contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful
>> about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
> Well. The relationalists have been losing the argument for 30 years.
> Ignorance outpaces knowledge in every generation, and the ratio of
> programmers to DBAs is at least 10:1, assuring who'll win the voice
> vote.
> The only thing that's kept the RM afloat in this stormy sea is that its
> sturdy construction allows it to continue to work, no matter how abused
> or perverted.
> --jkl
The RM ( whether Codd's, Date's, Darwen's, Pascal's, McGoveran's or some other authors whose names I can't remember) has for many years been over-complicated by many of the same people who now push "nosql", probably misunderstood too by most of them, with an industrial theory that is yet not fully formed.
This seems very ironic to me because the nosql movement seems to be very concerned with simplicity of implementation. The logical simplicity of the RM as I understand it remains not well understood at all and some of the famous popular thinkers and writers acknowledge this every so often. They also get pilloried, wrongly, from time to time for miss-steps. I suspect the difficulty of explaining it to people with an existing computer science heritage makes it seem bigger than it really is. Whereas I imagine that 10 year-old children without that baggage could learn it easier if it were only shown to them, minus cosmetics such as html. The right comparison is hardly between programmers and dba's. The cruel fact is that people of both those ilks will be known far in the future as a lost generation.
And, as is common, here we have 'sql' being conflated with 'relational'. I think you are right about the 'sturdy construction'. I'd like to see a coherent description of a 'logical nosql model'.
Jan Hidders wrote:
> Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
>> > You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
>> I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
>> counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
>> be had.
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it > is raging right now in both academia and industry.
I must have expressed myself badly.
My point was that geometry and singing are fine things of their sort but
they are in no way comparable or interchangeable. They simply have
nothing to do with each other.
The "discussion" that you say is raging is no such thing, no matter
much eager chatter there is from the NoSQL enthusiasts. They're just
excited to realize they've been banging the wrong shaped peg into their
hole. It remains to be seen whether NoSQL is the right shaped peg but
I have no interest in their holes so I don't care.
> Unless the
> relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their > usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims
> of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
Good grief! Does "lose the debate" mean NoSQL displaces SQL? You can't
possibly imagine that NoSQL is going to totally displace SQL in
industry? (Not that SQL has much to do with the RM.)
You know what? I'm willing to sit back and let it--if it can. No
debating; it can just show me. I'm not going to waste any energy
fighting the SQL corner.
> Op maandag 22 oktober 2012 21:19:41 UTC+2 schreef Roy Hann het volgende:
> > rh wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 19, 2012 1:02:40 PM UTC+1, Roy Hann wrote:
> > >> There is no point comparing SQL and NoSQL. You might as well compare
> > >> geometry and singing .
> > > Oh, I agree.
> > > You didn't actually watch the video, did you?
> > I did actually, and while it strove for a kind of balance, it was
> > counterproductive in that it falsely implied there was a debate even to
> > be had.
> I strongly disagree. There *is* a discussion to be had here and it is raging right now in both academia and industry. Unless the relationalists are going to realize this and manage to contain their usual arrogance and become more realistic and careful about the claims of the RM they will loose this debate very fast.
> -- Jan Hidders
It might have helped seriousness if this was illustrated with at least one concrete example of a "claim of the RM" that has been made too carelessly and too unrealistically, in the past, by one of them "arrogant" fierce relationalists.
At any rate, relationalists really have gotten used to "losing the debate". And have learned not to mind. And the RM is still alive and kicking and there are still new kids coming round the block doing an ever better job of implementing the RM properly.
