Email Me
There is more art than science in database design and development. The “art”, however, does not prosper until the science part is learned. Having seen the science part progress to this point I am impressed with the creativity but not always the sense of it. The RDMS is now the unchallenged dominant database model. The good reasons are the simplicity and flexibility of the model. The bad reasons are the lack of knowledge of the alternative models. There is often a sense that since one knows how to use a hammer then all problems should be solved by using a hammer. Even worse, nearly everyone has been convinced by Larry Elleson that his product is the only hammer that works.
My own experience has left me with a number of tools besides the RDBMS. I have worked with hierarchical model databases (System 2000), network model (Model 204), relational model (Informix and Sybase), and inverted model (Inquire). I am familiar with the concepts of the object database model, but with little demand for this there has been no opportunity to make use of this model. Also, the RDBMS model is being adapted to fill the roles envisioned for the object database model. Anyway, the RDBMS is easier to understand and lots of people are already familiar with it. I've also had some passing acquaintance with manufacturing systems which use a database model akin to the network model (things that go BOMP in the night).
|
Email Me |
Home Page | |
| © Copyright 2000-2001 Stephen Daniel McLeod | ||