Funniest videos I've seen in a long time.
YouTube - Episode 1 - Mongo DB Is Web Scale
YouTube - Episode 2 - All The Cool Kids Use Ruby
4 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 02 January 2011 - 10:26 AM
|
|
|
#2
Posted 02 January 2011 - 11:35 AM
Those are pretty funny.
#3
Posted 02 January 2011 - 12:11 PM
You work with databases a lot. How many times have you had to switch to a different database software (mysql -> oracle for example)? Does it make ORM's worth the abstraction? Also, have you ever found the need to use a document oriented database (CouchDB / MongoDB) or does optimizing the poorly crafted SQL suffice 99.99% of the time?
#4
Posted 02 January 2011 - 04:30 PM
I have written software that has to work with three different backends, depending on what the customer wants to use/invest in (Firebird, Oracles, MS SQL). My experience has been that a solid database structure means you don't have to use complicated SQL under most circumstances. It's more likely that the DB is missing an index or two than that the SQL is an issue.
I generally approach new technologies with one simple attitude: can you clearly and simply state the advantages in a convincing way? So far, my take on the ORMs is they are more about protecting programmers from thinking outside their OOP paradigm than about making a better product. I've also seen several database connection libraries that attempt to do the same thing with traditional RDBMS's, to mask the SQL from the user.
"It doesn't use SQL" is not an inherent advantage, to me. What does it let me do that I couldn't do before? What is the cost? As a contrast, when .NET came out, I could see the advantages, after a while. It does give MS developers a common platform to work with. I don't care to use it, because I mainly work on Linux for personal work, but I can see its benefits.
I've also worked with SQL Server database that are around 300+GB in size. They can be VERY fast, when properly tuned. Not the SQL statements, the database. Anyone who says RDBMS databases don't scale well has some proving to do.
I generally approach new technologies with one simple attitude: can you clearly and simply state the advantages in a convincing way? So far, my take on the ORMs is they are more about protecting programmers from thinking outside their OOP paradigm than about making a better product. I've also seen several database connection libraries that attempt to do the same thing with traditional RDBMS's, to mask the SQL from the user.
"It doesn't use SQL" is not an inherent advantage, to me. What does it let me do that I couldn't do before? What is the cost? As a contrast, when .NET came out, I could see the advantages, after a while. It does give MS developers a common platform to work with. I don't care to use it, because I mainly work on Linux for personal work, but I can see its benefits.
I've also worked with SQL Server database that are around 300+GB in size. They can be VERY fast, when properly tuned. Not the SQL statements, the database. Anyone who says RDBMS databases don't scale well has some proving to do.
#5
Posted 03 January 2011 - 05:27 AM
This video contains content from Comcast Entertainment Group, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Sorry about that.
Sorry about that.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


Sign In
Create Account

Back to top










