XPost: comp.lang.java.programmer
From: e@t.me
"DA Morgan" wrote in message
news:41d8219f$1_1@127.0.0.1...
> fishfry wrote:
>> In article ,
>> "Tom Dyess" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes, I would agree with the relational database. ORDB are mainly hype and
>>>usually promoted by coders that have never had to write a report or mine
>>>data effectively.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is this really true? I'm an experienced database programmer learning the
>> Java/OO way of doing things and I'm puzzled that people use Hibernate and
>> similar tools to define objects, with the database serving as just a
>> passive serialization mechanism with no thought to database theory. How
>> can this possibly work in real life? Also I've been told that stored
>> procedures are not supported by Hibernate, is that true? How can it be
>> that 20 years of relational theory seems to be getting thrown out
>> overnight? Or am I just misinformed?
>
> It is true. Most of the Java being written against relational databases
> doesn't perform and doesn't scale well. The saving grace for all of
> those Java geniuses is that they can blame it on the web and 99% of IT
> management is too clueless to know better.
That is pure opinion but you're welcome to it. I'm not sure why relational
purists are so biased against Java, but I can't think of a single
programming language that has increased the productivity of programmers more
than Java. Personally I prefer Java Stored Procedures to PL/SQL because
they are far quicker to develop and easier to debug, not too mention the
performance is comparable and sometimes superior when using the native
libraries. I can't understand why someone would choose clunky old PL/SQL
unless they are stuck in "the old days."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
