On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 16:17, Chris Browne wrote:
> smarlowe@g2switchworks.com (Scott Marlowe) writes:
> > To me, the real argument is, "Is SQL so lacking that it should be
> > replaced". In what REAL measurable ways is SQL lacking so badly we
> > should toss it and start over? It's not perfect, that's for sure.
> > But what's the investment on starting over, and the possible
> > traction of a non-SQL database in a largely SQL driven market?
>
> The only visible alternative, at this point, is Tutorial D, and it
> doesn't particularly excite me...
On the other hand, it's nice to know it's dragged down by a moniker even
more awkward than PostgreSQL's!
Honestly, Tutorial D does not make me think database. It makes me think
Calculus help line.