From: Marcel Weiher marcel@metaobject.com Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org To: The general-purpose Squeak developers listsqueak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: relational for what? [was: Design Principles Behind Smalltalk,Revisited] Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 16:36:42 -0800
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?
Well, it didn't tell us anything, it just reminded us that there are many more bad IT people then good ones (or at least it sure seems so).
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.
I agree. Trying to fit non-relational data into a DB because "it's what we know" is bad.
_________________________________________________________________ Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001