There's nothing wrong with relational databases. There's something deeply wrong with how developers
build relational databases. You can build databases in a way that meshes very cleanly with how humans think; people just
don't. When a database developer makes an Asset table and a Building table and a Vehicle table, he's explicitly saying that Assets are
definitely not Buildings and Vehicles are
definitely not Assets and Buildings are
definitely not Vehicles. That's the part that's completely foreign to how humans think: in reality, things are kinda like other things. No, Table Inheritance does not solve this problem (does it solve the problem in an OO language? No!). Again: you
could build relational databases that mesh with how humans think, you just
don't.
Also underlying your comment is this idea:
> Anything foreign to how humans think cannot help achieve intelligence.
Or:
> Human intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence.
Bullshit. You could just have easily written off fixed-wing aircraft by saying they're completely foreign to how birds fly. It's silly to think that our particular form of intelligence is the only possible form of intelligence.
Also underlying your comment is this idea:
> Anything foreign to how humans think cannot help achieve intelligence.
Or:
> Human intelligence is the only possible kind of intelligence.
Bullshit. You could just have easily written off fixed-wing aircraft by saying they're completely foreign to how birds fly. It's silly to think that our particular form of intelligence is the only possible form of intelligence.