You are mistaken. While certainly almost everything (right or wrong) has been said at some time by someone, nobody respectable who knew what they were doing ever claimed that object-oriented databases would not scale.
In fact OO and similar (CODASYL, network-style, etc. ) databases were used and continue to be used very heavily in applications where relational database do not scale.
I could train a cuttlefish to write a complex accounts program in COBOL.
Yeah, those cuttlefish are smart. I once saw a film of an octopus observing another octopus open a jar to get a live crab inside. He learned by observation how to do it quicker. Here's a Snopes link.
But if a cuttlefish is smart enough to lern COBOL, he'll probably learn Java instead so he can earn more crabs per hour. So I don't see COBOL cuttlefish flooding the market yet.
I've programmed in COBOL with files, non-relational databases, and with relational databases. I've worked with other languages (C, C++, Lisp, Perl et al) with files, non-relational databases, and with relational databases.
It's not particularly easy to properly handle the legal requirements with any type of system. But it's not overwhelmingly difficult to code in any system either. The underlying language/database combination makes little difference in payroll systems. You do the analysis, write the code and test. Time required is almost always the same regardless.
It's also proof that the creators never did understand views, stored procedures, referential integrity, triggers, ACID database properties and everything else that makes a true relational database like PostGreSQL.
All that work! How sad I am that we must reschedule the Web Services Choreography Working Group to consider to study XML's replacement, Protocol Buffers.
You tell it what books you like and it finds other books that are similarly structured?
What's the big deal, except that Google has Google books?
Anyone could do this. There's plenty of narrative analysis software: the government's outpouring of our tax dollars to "protect us" since 9/11 has triggered every halfwit software development firm in the country to develop
The system simulates a cortical "column" (as if you punched a cylindrical column in the cortex) - just a fraction of the full human visual cortex. So it's a long way from simulating the human visual system.
Hofstadter has been stuck in a strange loop since GEB so I think we need to look elsewhere.
Goetzel the Novamente guy has some good ideas, but he seems to be foundering at the moment for some reason. He speaks of "re-entrant loops" (surprise) of neurons. While this is a throwback to cybernetics, I think there's still much more good development to be done there. In fact I think it's the best approach.
Conventional computational GOFAI (using Simon's physical symbol system hypothesis) hasn't yet produced a model that nearly captures human thought. But neuroscientists have such a model - a time-dependent recursive network of neurons with varying firing rates and connection parameters). Although it seems difficult to model the brain, I believe we'll have to do that first and only develop a computational model _after_ we have a working neural model. Thereupon the computationalists will break the neural model down into modules, write the equations for each and declare that they were right all along!8-))
Of course the first would be the most terrifying. Never had to deal with an assailant with a woodie before and woodn't[sic] know what to do were I confronted with one.
Slashdot Mirror
In fact OO and similar (CODASYL, network-style, etc. ) databases were used and continue to be used very heavily in applications where relational database do not scale.
Yeah, those cuttlefish are smart. I once saw a film of an octopus observing another octopus open a jar to get a live crab inside. He learned by observation how to do it quicker. Here's a Snopes link.
But if a cuttlefish is smart enough to lern COBOL, he'll probably learn Java instead so he can earn more crabs per hour. So I don't see COBOL cuttlefish flooding the market yet.
I think rails are the next generation after that.
BTW I use "canals" in the sense of channel or tributary, not in the sense of "root canal", although that too has possibilities.
Nobody's forcing you to do anything! Get another job and quit complaining already!
I've programmed in COBOL with files, non-relational databases, and with relational databases. I've worked with other languages (C, C++, Lisp, Perl et al) with files, non-relational databases, and with relational databases.
It's not particularly easy to properly handle the legal requirements with any type of system. But it's not overwhelmingly difficult to code in any system either. The underlying language/database combination makes little difference in payroll systems. You do the analysis, write the code and test. Time required is almost always the same regardless.
Or am I being paranoid?
It's also proof that the creators never did understand views, stored procedures, referential integrity, triggers, ACID database properties and everything else that makes a true relational database like PostGreSQL.
Maybe it's time to introduce him to alcohol and social drinking?
Five Web 2.0 app dev lessons for enterprise IT
Nothing new here.
working on seat with disposable diaper for "accidents" while driving. Keep you dry while driving!
Also most terrific GPS that obey commands "take me home", "home, boy!" and "Wherethef***amI?" with most sincere and honorable retort.
That is, dealing with large strong persons with excessive martial arts experience and lots of attitude.
If a 100-year old man looks like a white prune?
All that work! How sad I am that we must reschedule the Web Services Choreography Working Group to consider to study XML's replacement, Protocol Buffers.
Favored by BG, since it allows him to pick your pocket while getting the shaft.
Quit screwing around with other foreign languages, this is the one you need to know first and foremost, you engineering weasel.
Only poofters and rounders learn "foreign languages". Give me a wavelet transform anyday!
What's the big deal, except that Google has Google books?
Anyone could do this. There's plenty of narrative analysis software: the government's outpouring of our tax dollars to "protect us" since 9/11 has triggered every halfwit software development firm in the country to develop
and sell them to the local militia.
What idiot editor let this subject get posted? Hasn't anyone taken an economics class:
Indium becomes scarce - price of indium rises - people recycle indium; people seek substitutes for indium - technological breakthrough allows substitution of dirt (well, ok, silicon) for indium - indium prices plummet; dirt prices rise - indium hoarders bemoan price drop, cannot give away their supplies.
Sheesh!
A nuclear wessel, captain! It appears to be deploying a nuclear wessel!
This is the key: AC power is available everywhere.
Take the battery out of your laptop and throw it away. It's dead weight - without it your laptop becomes truly portable.
Laptop manufacturers have missed a significant market by not producing lightweight laptops that use only AC power (_no_ battery packs).
They'd do better to buy a couple of IBM mainframes.
Good to see a fellow post here.
The system simulates a cortical "column" (as if you punched a cylindrical column in the cortex) - just a fraction of the full human visual cortex. So it's a long way from simulating the human visual system.
Hofstadter has been stuck in a strange loop since GEB so I think we need to look elsewhere.
Goetzel the Novamente guy has some good ideas, but he seems to be foundering at the moment for some reason. He speaks of "re-entrant loops" (surprise) of neurons. While this is a throwback to cybernetics, I think there's still much more good development to be done there. In fact I think it's the best approach.
Conventional computational GOFAI (using Simon's physical symbol system hypothesis) hasn't yet produced a model that nearly captures human thought. But neuroscientists have such a model - a time-dependent recursive network of neurons with varying firing rates and connection parameters). Although it seems difficult to model the brain, I believe we'll have to do that first and only develop a computational model _after_ we have a working neural model. Thereupon the computationalists will break the neural model down into modules, write the equations for each and declare that they were right all along!8-))
I hope no one thinks Microsoft is trying to help anyone other than themselves with this initiative.
Of course the first would be the most terrifying. Never had to deal with an assailant with a woodie before and woodn't[sic] know what to do were I confronted with one.