• squaresinger@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Fashion really does go in cycles.

    This here.

    When I got into programming I figured it would be mostly linear technological progression. Every once in a while something new gets invented that’s better than the last iteration, so we discard the last option (except for legacy stuff) and everyone moves to the better thing.

    But since then everything that was cool back then became uncool and cool again at least once.

    I like the SQL/No-SQL cycle. SQL is powerful, but it’s also slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invented No-SQL DBs. They are fast, lightweight, but also barebones and limited. So we add functionality here and there, and before we know it we have another variant of SQL with a different syntax. So we head back to use real SQL. But then we realize it’s slow and clunky and if you do it badly it gets really slow. So we invent a new No-SQL DB and the cycle continues.

    • Feyd@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It’s more that nosql makes sense of you have very specific performance characteristics and can accept very specific constraints.

      Alternatively, you want to use a document db because you don’t understand that delaying implementing schema integrity or implementing it yourself in the application layer instead of having it baked into your database will be more complex and slow you down in the long run. RDBMS isn’t slower than a generic document DB.