|laziness, impatience, and hubris
Thanks for the insight. I was rapidly arriving at similar conclusions:) In fact, just prior to reading your post, I made an update to my post which links to an article by said Fabian Pascal which, in his own words exemplifies exactly why I am skeptical of him, and those who share his POV.
As you say, definitely worth reading, but there is an underlying tone that makes doing the reading more than a little grating.
It could be countered that the problem with the majority of the current crop of OODBMSs is that they are little more than a thin veneer upon incomplete implementations of the RM. As such, I too have experienced the downsides they exhibit. However, the problems I have encountered with the performance are addressable, and become lessened by the continued action of Moore's Law. The inherent inefficiencies of the OO to RM mappings are lessened by the continued performance improvements in hardware.
The problems that result from the misfit between the OO view of programming and the RM are not so lessened. Being solely within the domain of each individual programmers ability to utilise a consistent model to store, access ad manipulate his data, the problem is one rooted entirely within the "wetware" part of the overall software development equation, which until we coders can upgrade our WiROMs (What i Remember Only Memories) with silicone implants, the problems will persist regardless of how powerful our workstations and servers become:)
In reply to Re: Re: J2EE is too complicated - why not Perl?(RDBMS and OO)