Could you actually go into some detail about these mythical problems with actual databases? Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable, but I've never gotten an actual explanation as to what problems they are having. As both a developer and a sysadmin, postgresql is much less of a pain in the ass than mongodb. And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean.
The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.
> Faux database apologists seem to really love claiming databases are so unusable
You really think tossing out insults like that is a way to have a reasoned conversation? I think not, come back when you can converse like an adult.
> And I have no idea what "don't mix well with the kinds of programs.." is supposed to mean.
Then you need more experience as a programmer perhaps. I'm a programer and a SQL guy, and I'm fully aware of what a pain SQL can be in an application and if you don't see the ease of programming things like NoSQL databases or Mongo bring to programming, you aren't paying attention or you're lying to yourself about how well SQL fits with code.
It depends upon the application, He is right and you also are right for the feilds of programming and applications you do, gets down to pro's and cons of types of interface to the database depending upon the application at hand. We all know the variations of those. Though perhaps could of been toned right. You are just going to argue over differing types of application without saying which type.
In short you are both right, applications and also use of said applications and requirments make the difference as to what interface is best. Don't need to argue over that without even stating it. You both win, this is the internet - now laugh :).
You made baseless assertions, and provided nothing to back them up. Your comment got precisely the response it deserves. Acting indignant does not support your assertions.
The fact that you have some unspecified problem does not mean anyone else who does not have that problem is inexperienced. Given the complete lack of information available, it is just as reasonable to conclude that you are in fact lacking in experience which allows others to solve the problem you continue to refuse to define.
+1 though your both right depending on the applicatiton and with that you will go from your experience and both be right without specifying in detail an example and neither of you want to go down to doing specs on a forum to win a argument that you both will win and end up arguing about the applicaiton and specs.
I say payroll databases at dawn, 50 paces each, turn and shoot. Go :-)
And which assertion was that; the one that Mongo fits a niche which it obviously does, or the one that many people find relational databases a pain, which they obviously do. Neither of those require me to provide evidence, they are self evident facts to anyone with even moderate experience in the field. I don't have an unspecified problem, not once did I even mention a problem, so take your childish argumentative b.s. somewhere else.
Both of them. You only wrote two sentences, it shouldn't be hard to find them.
>the one that many people find
You didn't say anything about "many people find". You said they are a pain in the ass, and don't mix well with the applications many people are writing. Those are both assertions, and you supported neither of them. Even after replying twice, you still haven't even given a hint as to what you might be referring to. That really makes it seem like you are just saying things out of ignorance.
> You didn't say anything about "many people find". You said they are a pain in the ass
I said they were a pain in the ass for the kinds of programs many people want to write. I'm sorry you're too ignorant to grok my meaning without it being explained to you like a five year old child.
> Those are both assertions, and you supported neither of them.
They are self evident facts and don't require supporting evidence; the very fact that a community exists around these products should make that clear to you.
In any case, it's absolutely clear there's no value in conversing with you, good day.
>I said they were a pain in the ass for the kinds of programs many people want to write
And refuse to specify what those kinds of programs might be. You are inventing a "many" and giving them a problem to create a false impression of consensus, when it is actually just you making a singular, baseless assertion.
>the very fact that a community exists around these products should make that clear to you.
I address that in the first post. You keep responding purely to act like a petulant child, but provide absolutely nothing to support your claims. Do you really think that makes you appear to be the rational, logical party?
The idea that "it must be good for something or people wouldn't use it" is absurd. People do the wrong thing all the time. People make technical decisions based on fads constantly. Mongodb is one of the prime examples of fad driven development choices, where people choose it because "it is web scale" while having no idea what they are even supposed to be comparing it to.