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

J J azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Thu Jan 4 18:40:33 UTC 2007


>From: Marcel Weiher <marcel at metaobject.com>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at 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




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list