I agree largely with this post. I'm tired of hearing the same arguments the author has. This technology we use is hardly infallible and as programmers and system administrators of these systems the defects should be obvious! Yet somehow people still think that the "clueless users" are to blame for these "defects."
Sure, we all know the saying about assumptions. But why are we at a point where it's cool to use a data persistance layer that assumes it doesn't have to live up to any of those assumptions? It's why we have things like ACID, the LSB, etc. Contracts about how these systems should work for the end user.
It's hard to get all that stuff right off the bat, sure. But losing the entire database when a few bytes land in the wrong place? Yikes. Hardly something I'd trust real data to.
This stuff can always get better. Of course the solution as pointed out is tried and true. Glad to see that the developers aren't covering their ears...
Sure, we all know the saying about assumptions. But why are we at a point where it's cool to use a data persistance layer that assumes it doesn't have to live up to any of those assumptions? It's why we have things like ACID, the LSB, etc. Contracts about how these systems should work for the end user.
It's hard to get all that stuff right off the bat, sure. But losing the entire database when a few bytes land in the wrong place? Yikes. Hardly something I'd trust real data to.
This stuff can always get better. Of course the solution as pointed out is tried and true. Glad to see that the developers aren't covering their ears...