>The second annoyance I have is the push for schemaless. Schemaless does not exist. There is always a schema, except in a schemaless data store, the schema has been moved to app code and then my earlier comment applies.
This is a great point. It's like types for programming languages. They always exist; it's just a matter of whether you have the compiler managing it or whether you need to keep it in your head when you're hacking.
> I think the lack of understanding of SQL and bad ORM experiences (Hibernate WTF) is what led people to think SQL/RDMBs were the problem when in fact they were not.
Again, like types in programming languages, I think the ability to iterate quickly without having to predict how the data will be used in the future leads to 'schemaless' approaches which can be kicked out the door more quickly (maybe) than ponderous schema laden tables.
This is a great point. It's like types for programming languages. They always exist; it's just a matter of whether you have the compiler managing it or whether you need to keep it in your head when you're hacking.
> I think the lack of understanding of SQL and bad ORM experiences (Hibernate WTF) is what led people to think SQL/RDMBs were the problem when in fact they were not.
Again, like types in programming languages, I think the ability to iterate quickly without having to predict how the data will be used in the future leads to 'schemaless' approaches which can be kicked out the door more quickly (maybe) than ponderous schema laden tables.