People have been pushing things like this for years. Seriously, it was an old idea a decade ago, when the first round of major object database vendors were going bankrupt.
Why don't they replace RDBMSes? My guess would be that part of it has to do with an exaggeration of the performance and scalability they offer. We've developed a very good understanding of how to do concurrency and data safety in large-scale RDBMSes, and I don't believe the object database vendors when they claim they've duplicated all of that.
A lot of it though is probably the thing you suggest is a weakness: SQL. With SQL, many ad hoc reporting tasks don't require the help of a programmer at all. Remember, SQL was invented so that business people could write their own reports, and some of them do. Some minimally trained HTML jockeys do too. When you lock up the data behind a Java or Erlang API, you lose something valuable.
By the way, there have been interfaces for Perl over the years to things like AceDB and ObjectStore.
In reply to Re: Integrated non-relational databases ?
by perrin
in thread Integrated non-relational databases ?
by rootcho
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |