relational for what? [was: Design Principles Behind Smalltalk, Revisited]

Marcel Weiher marcel at
Thu Jan 4 00:36:42 UTC 2007

On Jan 3, 2007, at 13:39 , J J wrote:

>> From: Howard Stearns <hstearns at>
>> Of course. No question.  Except, of course, where they don't. The 3- 
>> tier enterprise software scenario is -- to me -- an example of it  
>> NOT working.
> I think this is due to your bad experiences with bad implementations.

Obviously.  And yours seems to be good experiences with good  
implementations.  What does that show us?  Apart from that both good  
and bad examples exist?

>> What I'm trying to do -- and of course, this isn't a Squeak  
>> question at all, but I hope it is a Squeak community question -- is  
>> try to learn what domain a perfectly running RDBMS is a good fit  
>> for by design, compared with a perfectly running alternative (even  
>> a hypothetical one).
> Programmer time.  How long will it take to make the RDBMS run  
> perfectly (for some definition of perfectly) vs. writing this  
> alternative.
> It is the same argument of using an existing DSL vs. just writing it  
> by hand in your favorite language.

Precisely.  If the problem domain is a good fit for the RDBMS/DSL,  
data that naturally wants to be in 'tables', then it *may* be a win,  
even after factoring in the inevitable overhead of overcoming  
packaging mismatch.  If the original problem is not naturally "table- 
oriented", and many are not, then it's just not going to be a win.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list