Do you think SQL is getting disrespected? Or does the author need to open his eyes to the opportunities and features in other types of data stores? Tell us what you think in the talk.editors.devx discussion group.
As we race towards better object technology, some people seem content to put relational database systems out to pasture—for no good reason.
by Jack D. Herrington
October 8, 2003
've often heard it said that database management systems are archaic technology and that XML and object oriented databases are the wave of the future. I'm no curmudgeon; I like new technologies as much as anyone else, but I'm also a pragmatist—a philosophy that requires me to question the value of going with a newer technology just because it's the hottest thing on the block.
Just how old are these technologies? The object-oriented trend started with Smalltalk, which was first released in 1964. By comparison, SQL databases are new, having been developed in 1977 and first productized by Oracle in 1979 and by IBM in 1981. There is no such thing as 'your grandfather's SQL database' unless your grandfather is young enough to have experienced feathered haircuts, Duran Duran, and 'Frankie say' T-shirts.
It's quick, easy and you get access to all the articles on DevX.
This registration/login is to allow you to read articles on devx.com. Already a member?
To become a member of DevX.com create your Member Profile by completing the form below. Membership is free!
've often heard it said that database management systems are archaic technology and that XML and object oriented databases are the wave of the future. I'm no curmudgeon; I like new technologies as much as anyone else, but I'm also a pragmatist—a philosophy that requires me to question the value of going with a newer technology just because it's the hottest thing on the block.
