Quote:
Thanks for the enlightening comments Stephen.
Maybe future development should concentrate as much on stability and safety as much as on further features.
|
Back in May of 2000 during the initial release of SQLite I bet no-one pondered that 7 years later you couldn't buy a computer with less than a 100GB hard disk and that some people would be using SQLite for 1GB+ database files. I'll take a punt here by suggesting that with UR being so good it's easy for users to build up 500MB+ files which then push the limits of SQLite. In a normal relational database scenario SQLite would be fine. Drop it into a hyperactive application like UR and it gets a little testy.
If you want 99% stability now - keep your file sizes down. If you want 99.9% stability and large .urd files in the future - a couple of things need to happen. First a change in database engine. Perhaps over the next 12 to 24 months UR could be ported to run against a stronger DB engine. However, we will very likely pay a performance penalty! The other change is unrealistic - provide a UR version to run under a Unix / Linux based operating system.
Quote:
|
Perhaps the surprising thing is that applications such as UR, which to my mind ought to be central to PC use, still have only small acceptance.
|
Yes. The crux here is the ever present challenge of information management. It's hard enough for the average person to manage information when the structure is laid out for them. If you give them an open palette like UR then you best make sure the oxygen bottle is handy...