It is kind of a purists fallacy. Point being if you could just write ASM code it would be the best.
When in reality, a database is used not because it is the best technical database, but is used by many people. Something that other developers can pickup and use without reading a 200 page manual and study for a year on end. Although maybe stuff would be better if everyone did that, on the other hand might just be wasted effort. You complain about no-SQL database but actually then advocate for it, by saying SQL is sad. I find Postgres as a traditional RDB and has specific use cases. If you compare that to Clickhouse which has a very different use case. Don't compare timeseriesdb, because even that has limitations that clickhouse surpasses at scale. Just an example of a no-SQL database. If you do start a new database, let me know. I would like to see that in action. On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 9:20 AM Rob Sargent <robjsarg...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 9/14/21 10:10 AM, Michael Nolan wrote: > > I started programming in 1967, and over the last 50+ years I've programmed > in more languages than I would want to list. I spent a decade writing in > FORTRAN on a GA 18/30 (essentially a clone of the IBM 1130) with limited > memory space, so you had to write EFFICIENT code, something that is a bit > of a lost art these days. I also spent a decade writing in COBOL. > > I've not found many tasks that I couldn't find a way to write in whatever > language I had available to write it in. There may be bad (or at least > inefficient) languages, but there are lots of bad programmers. > -- > Mike Nolan > htf...@gmail.com > > OK, I'm maybe responsible for this thread turning into a diatribe. I > shouted at OP 'cause he shouted at us. My mistake, and I apologize. > I'm probably closer to Mike's "bad programmers" than I would care to admit > but fully believe software is a "people problem" more than most of us > realize. > -- scot...@gmail.com
