Unlike the NoSql movement, it embraces SQL and many RDBMS conventions to reduce the learning curve. It only removes or changes RDBMS features that get in the way of dynamism, but keeps the baby in the bathwater. And it allows incremental tightening of constraints/types to go from prototype to production. I'd love such a tool for prototyping.
This "isn't being worked on" topic is large and popular; I suggest follow-up HN entries break suggestions into categories for further discussion. HN is about innovation and the future.
I miss the C2 wiki for documenting opinions on various suggestions, and allow slower pondering. Nothing has replaced it for that function.
Maybe parts of it can be borrowed to implement Dynamic Relational (DR), but it looks too different from RDBMS such that there's a big learning curve. A goal of DR is to only deviate from RDBMS conventions JUST enough to get sufficient dynamism. It doesn't try to be a new database paradigm.
Unlike the NoSql movement, it embraces SQL and many RDBMS conventions to reduce the learning curve. It only removes or changes RDBMS features that get in the way of dynamism, but keeps the baby in the bathwater. And it allows incremental tightening of constraints/types to go from prototype to production. I'd love such a tool for prototyping.
This "isn't being worked on" topic is large and popular; I suggest follow-up HN entries break suggestions into categories for further discussion. HN is about innovation and the future.
I miss the C2 wiki for documenting opinions on various suggestions, and allow slower pondering. Nothing has replaced it for that function.