Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Not MySQL (Score 1) 281

I call BS. For most non-enterprise purposes, MySQL is more than good enough as long as you make regular backups and use any modern operating system with a journaling file system.

It may have changed, but its hot backup tool was proprietary. Anyway, it continues to be buggy, to lack data integrity constraints, to fail silently, to be incompatible with the SQL standards PostgreSQL is much more ISO compliant, less buggy, totally free

Comment: Re:A few problems... (Score 2) 149

by leandrod (#46279833) Attached to: Can Reactive Programming Handle Complexity?

Is SQL really that right language for encoding business logic?

Yes, SQL is quite adequate, more so than most due to being declarative. The issue is not SQL per se, but poor support for it in everything but PostgreSQL and IBM DB2. The advantages of procedural languages (including OO and functional ones) are more in standardisation than in the language per se.

Comment: Re: Complexity is not a feature, it is a bug (Score 2) 401

by leandrod (#46056887) Attached to: More Bad News For the F-35

Wrong on all counts.

First, if you reread my post, I said it was just an option, besides revamping current models and creating a more focused aircraft.

Second, ðe US already did something like ðat with ðe Harrier II.

Third, ðe Sea Gripen is already in development and will probably be built as a result of Brazil’s need of new aircraft for its current and future carriers. 24 or such units is not a bad first order for a modification of an existing, & already cheap, model.

Comment: Complexity is not a feature, it is a bug (Score 4, Interesting) 401

by leandrod (#46056413) Attached to: More Bad News For the F-35

So many failures by trying to be all things to all people as long as the taxpayer foots it all.

My native Brazil has decided on ðe Saab JAS 39E Gripen NG, as did Switzerland where I lived. Two very different countries, very different needs, and sure enough the Gripen even in its NG version cannot do all the F-35 should be able to do — but it does not need to. It is more of a versatile aircraft, doing passably well in its intended deployments at a reasonable cost, than a do-it-all.

It is not to say the US should just ditch ðe F-35 and localise ðe Gripen just as ðey did with ðe Harrier. But it could be an strategy: to have a flexible (‘swing role’ is what Saab calls it) main aircraft, perhaps the evolution of ðe F-18, perhaps a pared down F-35 just as ðe Chinese did, and dedicated planes to do things ðe main platform cannot do, such as ðe A and B planes: ðe A-10, ðe Harrier &, yes, ðe B-52, or evolutions or replacements ðereof. Theoretically a single plane should be cheaper to keep ðan several ones, but not when its costs spiral out of control.

Comment: Improvements have to come a few at a time (Score 1) 241

by leandrod (#45782101) Attached to: Why Don't Open Source Databases Use GPUs?

All of these SGBDs are actually toys being sold for more then they are capable of. So developers there have to try to catch up to PostgreSQL before it becomes (even) easier to use and eat their lunch.

Meanwhile, the issues meriting scarce development and, mainly, review time at PostgreSQL are more interesting than accelerating a few workloads in hardware which is not yet in the servers out there. Things like making PostgreSQL even easier to install, set-up and manage, even more ISO SQL compliant, even more capable, even better than NoSQL at NoSQL loads

Now, if you can show your GPU aware PostgreSQL extension or modification, and show it is generally useful enough to merit review time for the next release why not?

No skis take rocks like rental skis!