"Relational database technology is pretty much obsolete and archaic.", Geoffrey P. Malafsky, Ph.D. from the Karen Lopez link.
What an idiot. Saying relational technology is obsolete is like saying algebra is obsolete; utter nonsense. Relational theory, which the technology is based on, is pure mathematics. I love the purpose of his company:Agile Data Governance and Standards. When you hear anything with "governance" in it get up and run. Those are code words for waste of time and high consultant fees.
But what else would you expect from someone making such a ridiculous comment.
Malafasky simply ran into the usual confusion between "not the newest version" and "obsolete". By the definition he's using, spoken communication is "obsolete", because, let's face it, it's a bit aged, and there are significantly more efficient means of data transmission available these days. So are wheels, knives, fire, walking, food, and a million other things.
There's a big difference between actually obsolete (buggy whips, crossbows), old and proven (speaking, wheel, knife), semi-obsolete but fashionable (cooking over fire), on-the-way-out (landline phones), and should-be-retired-already-but-isn't (coal power plants). Relational data storage is "old and proven" so far as I can tell.
There's a very good book on the subject: http://www.future-hype.com/book.php
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon