On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 09:57:40PM +0100, Andreas Raab wrote:
> Howard Stearns wrote:
> >Yes, I'm quite serious. I'm asking what kinds of problems RDBMS are 
> >uniquely best at solving (or at least no worse). I'm not asking whether 
> >they CAN be used for this problem or that.  I'm asking this from an 
> >engineering/mathematics perspective, not a business ("we've always done 
> >things this way" or "we like this vendor") perspective.
> 
> The main benefit: They work. There is no question how to use them, apply 
> them to problems, map them into different domains etc. This has all been 
> worked out, there is nothing new to find out, just a book or two to 
> read. From an engineering perspective that is vastly advantageous since 
> it represents a solution with a proven track-record and no surprises.

Quite right from an engineering perspective. But "proven track-record
and no surprises" is wrong, at least in the context of the larger
organizations for which RDBMS are considered appropriate. This has
very little to do with technology, mathematics, or engineering, and
lots to do with organizational behavior. An RDBMS scales extremely
well, but the human organizations associated with them do not.

One lesson that I take from Squeak is that the way people interact
with technology is important. It does not matter whether or not
Squeak is "fast" if it helps people to work with ideas and solve
problems quickly. More broadly, it does not matter if a technology
(RDBMS or whatever) scales well if it leads people and organizations
to behave as disfunctional groups of "architects," "data analysts,"
and so forth.

Dave

p.s. Ralph Johnson's earlier reply on this thread is an excellent
assessment, and would serve well as the last word on the topic.
My sincere apologies for indulging in a further reply ;)