"In brief, Java Data Objects (JDO) insulates you from needing to know a lot about databases."
First of all, I wouldn't want to hire that developer. Secondly, that is not entirely correct. O/R frameworks are useful in that they provide a consistent interface
First, you use SQL and relational interchangeably. That is incorrect.
Second, you fail to provide a coherent logical model of your data - something that is necessary regardles of your preference for a RDBMs or a "XMLDB".
For example, your refer to WIDGET1 as an entity when really it is a type. In your database, you will need to track the instances of WIDGET1. Something is a WIDGET1 because it needs to relate to 10 screws and 3 instances of WIDGET2.
So far we are talking about
1 WIDGET1s
3 WIDGET2s
4 WIDGET3s
70 screws (assuming the screws used by in a WIDGET1 and a WIDGET2 are the same)
Perhaps some clarification would sort this out. Do you mean to say that a WIDGET is a WIDGET and that it becomes a "WIDGET1" only when it is put together with 10 screws and 3 other WIDGETs? In that case, why are the 3 other WIDGETs not miraculously transformed into "WIDGET1s. After all, they too are related to 3 other WIDGETS and 10 screws.
You must create a logical model of this - what are the components of your data, how do they relate, what are the rules that govern data manipulation. This is where relational technology comes in. Relational technology allows you to use the predicate logic to describe the specifics of your data to a RDBMs.
How is this at all a problem for the relational model?
The relational model is a logical model and I challenge you to find any example of data that cannot be represented quite easily in the relational model. In your example, you have traded any notion of data integrity for what you assume will be faster data access. In fact, since the relational model makes no recommendations on how data is physically stored, this is not necessarily the case.
How would XPath enforce your rules on how parts can relate to other parts? Why don't you just try flat files and grep?
XML is a perfectly acceptable means of data representation. It does not however by any means provide a formal, coherent theory of data management.
I really hope you were kidding about teaching anyone anything. You have a lot of learning to do.
By that logic, every time I watch the Golden Girls and don't run out to buy the bladder control garment or sports utility vehicle that they are hawking during the breaks, I am stealing programming. Should I go to jail because I invariably switch channels as soon as a commercial comes on only to switch back like an ungrateful sea slug when they are over?
True, I am stuck on Windows2000 Professional. For some reason, my company does not like to pay for a new version of the OS every sixty-five seconds. I don't know why.
I have used XP. It is slower than glue-sniffing, semi-lobotomized tow truck driver from Arkansas. We had an older computer here that functioned reasonably well speed-wise with 2000. Someone made the mistake of loading XP on there. Now everyone who uses that box complains "this computer is too slow". I don't think it is the computer.
I agree KDE is not the greatest - especially in full bells & whistle mode.
'Stability'. Is this Onion-esqu irony or is this person insane? I have to use windows at work and it is a total nightmare. It would be hard to switch here because everyone uses MS Office apps for to write documents,etc. This in itself is idiotic. All our source code is kept in CVS and works great yet people insist on trying to use this "Track Changes" junk in MS Word. (Of course, word and CVS dont get along because Work is binary.)
I suppose I should try openoffice and see it would work for me.
On second reading, I have decide that the original post is indeed tounge in cheek. What else could "lucky" and "learn" and "Visual C++" be doing in the same sentence.
You would be much better off starting with an introduction to relational database theory. (Notice I did *NOT* say SQL database theory.)
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
You would be much better off starting with an introduction to relational database theory. (Notice I did *NOT* say SQL database theory.)
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
um. wow.
that was horrific. Halfway through, I was praying for some sort of divine intervention to end my misery. Anything to spare me from one more second of wooden cheesy dialogue and half baked special effects.
I think I am going to be sick
Slashdot Mirror
seriously
First of all, I wouldn't want to hire that developer. Secondly, that is not entirely correct. O/R frameworks are useful in that they provide a consistent interface
I'm surprised you haven't featured this story on how Congressmen are losing their jobs to technical inovation.
The super lame thing is that I had been sent this article over a week ago.
First, you use SQL and relational interchangeably. That is incorrect.
Second, you fail to provide a coherent logical model of your data - something that is necessary regardles of your preference for a RDBMs or a "XMLDB".
For example, your refer to WIDGET1 as an entity when really it is a type. In your database, you will need to track the instances of WIDGET1. Something is a WIDGET1 because it needs to relate to 10 screws and 3 instances of WIDGET2.
So far we are talking about
1 WIDGET1s
3 WIDGET2s
4 WIDGET3s
70 screws (assuming the screws used by in a WIDGET1 and a WIDGET2 are the same)
Perhaps some clarification would sort this out. Do you mean to say that a WIDGET is a WIDGET and that it becomes a "WIDGET1" only when it is put together with 10 screws and 3 other WIDGETs? In that case, why are the 3 other WIDGETs not miraculously transformed into "WIDGET1s. After all, they too are related to 3 other WIDGETS and 10 screws.
You must create a logical model of this - what are the components of your data, how do they relate, what are the rules that govern data manipulation. This is where relational technology comes in. Relational technology allows you to use the predicate logic to describe the specifics of your data to a RDBMs.
The relational model is a logical model and I challenge you to find any example of data that cannot be represented quite easily in the relational model. In your example, you have traded any notion of data integrity for what you assume will be faster data access. In fact, since the relational model makes no recommendations on how data is physically stored, this is not necessarily the case.
How would XPath enforce your rules on how parts can relate to other parts? Why don't you just try flat files and grep?
XML is a perfectly acceptable means of data representation. It does not however by any means provide a formal, coherent theory of data management.
I really hope you were kidding about teaching anyone anything. You have a lot of learning to do.
IMHO, its no SNAFU that "YAPC::NA::2003 CFP" + PERL are FUBR.
By that logic, every time I watch the Golden Girls and don't run out to buy the bladder control garment or sports utility vehicle that they are hawking during the breaks, I am stealing programming. Should I go to jail because I invariably switch channels as soon as a commercial comes on only to switch back like an ungrateful sea slug when they are over?
True, I am stuck on Windows2000 Professional. For some reason, my company does not like to pay for a new version of the OS every sixty-five seconds. I don't know why. I have used XP. It is slower than glue-sniffing, semi-lobotomized tow truck driver from Arkansas. We had an older computer here that functioned reasonably well speed-wise with 2000. Someone made the mistake of loading XP on there. Now everyone who uses that box complains "this computer is too slow". I don't think it is the computer. I agree KDE is not the greatest - especially in full bells & whistle mode.
'Stability'. Is this Onion-esqu irony or is this person insane? I have to use windows at work and it is a total nightmare. It would be hard to switch here because everyone uses MS Office apps for to write documents,etc. This in itself is idiotic. All our source code is kept in CVS and works great yet people insist on trying to use this "Track Changes" junk in MS Word. (Of course, word and CVS dont get along because Work is binary.) I suppose I should try openoffice and see it would work for me. On second reading, I have decide that the original post is indeed tounge in cheek. What else could "lucky" and "learn" and "Visual C++" be doing in the same sentence.
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
I have found http://www.dbdebunk.com/ very informative. If you insist on cutting down trees, I would recommend any of the books that this site links to.
There are fundamental problems with SQL. You may well be forced to work with it but you should at least know what its limitations are.
Hopefully, once you truly understand the problems with SQL, you will see the light, rebel, tell Oracle et al to go screw, and help develop some nice good Open Source alternative to the crappy SQL language.
If you disagree, you are welcome to touch me lower.
um. wow. that was horrific. Halfway through, I was praying for some sort of divine intervention to end my misery. Anything to spare me from one more second of wooden cheesy dialogue and half baked special effects. I think I am going to be sick