"Arved Sandstrom" <asandstrom@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:Wtk8k.133$1o6.120@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "David Cressey" <cressey73@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> I'm absolutely not knocking XML. I happen to think it's overused, but it
is
> a natural fit for many applications.
>
> My actual point was, flat files deserve respect also. The attitude I was
> thinking of is exemplified by a poster in another newsgroup, who had to
> process legacy flat files produced by what the fellow referred to as
"old
> programmers who only know Fortran", or something like that. What he was
> actually having a problem with was header lines. I figure, if a
programmer
> doesn't have the discipline or willingness to "get" databases, they
won't
be
> so hot with regular files either.
>
You are right. I still use flat files on occasion, and I use CSV files as
well. I also still tune in to AM radio on occasion. Our entire legacy
deserves respect. The people who went before us were just as smart as we
are, and some of them were even smarter.
I partly disagree with your *****sment about people who don't "get"
databases. There are people who don't "get" query optimization or
concurrency management, or transaction isolation, but who work just fine
in
a single user files environment. To me the question is more like: do they
or do they not "get" data? There are a lot of programmers who just don't
think that there is anything to "get" about data. These people tend to
think that a computer program is a bunch of tedious garbage, followed by
the words "procedure division" or "begin" or some such introduction to
"the
real computer program".
Unfortunately, the object oriented paradigm has taught many people that
data is a bunch of details that are best hidden away where almost no one
can
see them. In the context of object oriented programming, that is a
valuable truth. In the context of data managment, it's the worst possible
attitude.
> I'd also be a bit dubious about such a programmer tackling binary data
> files...
>
> [ SNIP ]
> > Today, creating a new database has become so easy that many
programmers
> > use
> > a DBMS to manage data in almost exactly the same way they would use a
file
> > system to manage data. I'm not being facetious when I suggest that
some
> > of
> > those people would get more productivity out of files.
>
> I suspect you're right. I'd phrase it differently: depending on the
> application any one of us might get more productivity out of files.
Another
> factor is this - a huge amount of the productivity associated with files
> derives from skillful use of shell programs like awk, cut, paste, grep
etc
> etc, and the percentage of programmers that are dab hands with tools
like
> this is not great.
I agree with your point. But I reiterate that there are some people who
will be more productive with files in an environment where you or I would
be
more productive using a DBMS.
|
