jclevy

As I can remember, my approach was the first one: "bottom up in literally translating instructions and assuming it will lead to same results if translated accurately enough". That was not to difficult to achieve.

The funny thing was that Jordan Mechner used every bit of available memory in the Apple II computer, so I had to be very careful ;-)

Then the hard part: create the input and output codes that were totally different on the two computers, then the code for sounds and music also totally specific and then I wanted to have better graphics. So I ended up by creating a sprite editor, in assembly language, for my graphic artist colleague so that we can recreate all graphic assets and put color in it...

I just want to test this and see if the database can do more and my code less.

You can of course manage all those relations in a relational database but the job is done by you, not by the database.

ChocoDB wants to (re)experiment new ways of dealing with database. It want to keep it simple and accessible.

Dealing with performance, ChocoDB is currently fast enough for me (2x times slower that classic SQLite ; my first version was 8x slower!)

I would say that my objective with ChocoDB is to make it accessible and useful to people who want to manage database structures and queries in a more natural way.

I want the database to help manage different types of relations: inclusion, group, structure, association...

Key/value is simple but it does not help to manage relations. Relational DB don't either help to manage different types of relations.