Did you know that row-aligned databases are obsolete? This was the shocking news last week, as one of the pioneers of relational databases declared that column-oriented, not row-oriented databases, are the future. And, as expected, the argument is along the lines of "This technology suits our applications (calculations/aggregations, in this case), so the other technology is obsolete."
This is somewhat reminiscent of the early pre-calculus discussions involving limits, but I'll leave that out for now. What I will include is some pointing-and-laughing at the vast amount of bullshit discussion that can and will accrue along artificially opposing positions like this.
The scenario: You have identified applications for which a certain method is more efficient, but in a divided labor force, and more importantly, a divided business/labor force, you can't expect potential customers to have a clue as to the advantages of your tech. So, present yourself as 'the future', 'the new wave', 'advanced tech', or some such nonsense, and put down the existing/opposing methods as obsolete technology. The opposing side will gather supporters, and both sides will fill the air with trumpeting overtures of absolute superiority, tempered by soft, conciliatory disclaimers of the absolute, as it pertains to an overall solution. Let's also not discount the role of "Moore's minions," (to butcher the Moore's Law concept) who will feign superiority by pitching their custom-built, highest-optimized solutions as general-case superiority.
Confused yet? Good, because none of the legions of salespeople, consultants, or dedicated programmers involved in this spooball will get paid nearly as much, if you are clueful enough to think for yourself. Along the way, enough dazed managers will buy the 'new' product and services, and from that capital flow, technology will eventually become fine-tuned, and maybe a real advance will eventually take place. Is it wasteful? Absolutely. Is it necessary? Perhaps so, and that's unfortunate. |
