Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Look to history (Score 1) 280

If you want to understand the difference between Americans and Russians, compare GPS with GLONASS.

With GPS, each satellite transmits the ephemeris data for all satellites. That way, each receiver can track the satellites, so they know exactly where they are at any time, and also which part of the elliptical orbit they're in, so that they can correct for the fact that satellite is travelling faster at aphelion than perihelion, which affects the atomic clock speed due to relativistic effects.

With GLONASS, each satellite broadcasts X, Y, Z, X', Y', and Z'. That's pretty much it.

The difference between Americans and Russians is that Americans know how to build powerful consumer electronics which can do complex calculations, and Russians know how to inject a satellite into an almost perfectly circular orbit.

Comment Re: Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it work (Score 1) 211

https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/dynamic-columns/

Interesting. But they do seem like second-class citizens compared to "regular" columns in Maria-DB. It's extra syntax to use them. My approach would allow formality to be incrementally added without changing a column's "type" (mode?) from dynamic to static.

They also seem to require explicit type declarations. I prefer implied or WYSIWYG typing, a bit more like perl's typing model, even if it does complicate comparisons to some degree. (Different readers had diff opinions on how to handle dynamically-typed comparisons. I prefer a symbol next to the comparison operator, such as "#" for numeric: it's short and easy.)

Comment Re: False premise (Score 1) 457

Let me field that answer. They'll use it, just like organizations kept using WinXP pre-SP3, until the new Director of IT came along and said "Are you fucking kidding me?! What incompetent idiot let you stay unpatched and critically open to everything that has come along in the last fucking decade?! Oh, the same one who thought it's a great idea to never upgrade hardware, despite your staff barely surviving on machines that crash daily, or catch fire like those two did last week."

Comment Re:Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it works (Score 1) 211

Sounds awfully like Prolog.

Not really. Prolog is mostly a query-like language; I'm not defining a language. SQL, or at least some variant of it, is good enough; no need for users to relearn the entire wheel.

(I've proposed an alternative to SQL, but it's probably not significantly better enough to dethrone the de-facto standard: SQL, for most uses. But that's a different topic.)

Comment Re:Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it works (Score 1) 211

Oh dear gods, you want dynamic schema because planning is hard and relational database normalization is too complicated for you. Nobody sees the value in your asinine idea because you're an idiot.

Sometimes planning is hard. I've been in many situations where the customer doesn't quite know what they want yet, and/or some trial-and-error is needed to settle on an optimum design. Think of it as a prototyping tool.

Have you memorized every domain and customer preference in the world?

Comment Re: Dynamic Relational [Re: That's not how it work (Score 1) 211

and there's no distinction between a missing column and one that didn't exist, how does hashing work?

Same way as before. I don't see that as a practical stumbling block, but maybe you have a specific use-case in mind that would muck things up?

Informal categorisation and structuring has its place, but that's an entirely different beast to a relational database.

Indeed with regard to informal structuring: something easy to get going is often useful for prototyping. One can then lock down this tool incrementally as things settle (or migrate to a static RDBMS).

I've been in rather long debates about the definition of "relational database", and found no clear-cut "failure" to match. Language is subject to interpretation.

Anyhow, the idea is to produce a useful tool. It's formal category or definition is secondary to being useful.

Comment Re:We love functional languages except using them. (Score 1) 176

Maybe with enough training and experience, one may be able to pull it off, but a future maintenance programmer may not be able to follow your technique well. It increases the hiring and training burden for your organization.

There are techniques that work better under ideal conditions, but ideal conditions are hard to come by.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If Diet Coke did not exist it would have been neccessary to invent it." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...