BringTheTanks's comments

> Not earth-shattering, but with ReQL all I need to do is attach a function

Thing is, some SQL databases have columnar storage, and in there selecting everything, then filtering with an attached function would eliminate the performance benefit of not selecting all of the fields.

This is why SELECT looks like it does. Not to mention it's much shorter than attaching a function for the purpose.

The author also himself acknowledges that:

> The downside is that your queries end up quite long and, for some, rather intimidating.

Ok so they're "quite long" and have less potential for optimizing the performance of. Amazing?

His example of creating specific indexes and views is also not new to SQL.

> There are 3 official drivers: Python, Ruby and Node.

Amazing?

> The query itself didn’t change at all – I could copy and paste it right in. I had to wrap it with connection info and a run() function, but that’s it.

So just like an SQL query, except I can connect to an SQL RDBMS from virtually any language I can think of, and not just a narrow selection of 3 script languages.

I sympathize with author's excitement, but from all his examples SQL feels like it has quite an edge both in availability and in terms of design and fit for the domain than a bunch of JS functions composed together (as much as I like composing functions together in JS).

I realize how much hard work the folks at RethinkDB have put into creating their product. But technology adoption is not driven by pity, it's driven by benefits. For a new type of DB to not be a flash in the pan it needs a lot more than being "stable and fast". It needs to offer significant additional benefits when compared to existing DBs. And I ain't seeing it.

My apps are service-oriented, and every service is in a different language. And for every one of them I and my team ask ourselves "why".

The only one framing the debate so negatively here is you. As a fan of "Go" you should be taking the opportunity to educate people about it.

Instead, I'm left with a bad taste in my mouth. Let's hope this mood is not representative of the Go community.

If I'm asked why I use the technologies I use in my projects, I'd gladly give specific engineering and business reasons, and not just say "YouTube uses it".

We should be ready to have these technical discussions and encourage them, not be so strangely defensive about it as you seem to be.

Asking "why" is a sign of curiosity, a desire to gain insight from the experience of those who are, apparently, willing to share it with us.

Using fashionable tech X is not bad on its own. But without the "why" we have no clue what the author's reasons for the given choices are, and how the end results align with the initial reasons.

Lots of small businesses have driven themselves off a cliff basing their tech choices on what their employees would "enjoy" most. It's a good reason to code Go in your free time, but not to migrate a company's infrastructure to it.

It's very strange to see that you wouldn't want to know "why". Maybe you're smarter than all of us.

> That's 300k/day Apple gets for doing nothing.

Where by nothing you mean "run the App Store".

> this time next year we'll all be talking about "watch first web development."

This doesn't diminish your overall point, but a little side note - Apple Watch has no browser, and it'll never have one.

The chips use virtually no power.

The only limit is the power the connected through the hub devices draw.