MySQL is to Oracle as Vi is to Emacs
Maybe this has been said before, but think about it.
Here's what they all have in common:
- All are cool technologies and worthy of respect in their own right
- All have zealots vigorously defend their technology to the death
- Each set (Oracle/Emacs and MySQL/Vi) represents a different way of looking at and solving a problem
For the Oracle/Emacs world things work like this:
The technology is the be-all/end-all, make it do everything we want.
In many ways this is a huge advantage, things are tightly integrated, you don't need to worry so much about system conventions and portability, because new features can easily be added inside the existing framework. This continues until the technology becomes very Operating System-like.
The disadvantage (to my mind) seems to be bloat. What the technology was really made for becomes a little murky with all the extra features and complexity of setup and use.
I can't spend as much time explaining this camp here, because I'm not a part of it. I do know that Oracle installations take up multiple Gigabytes by default and Emacs has its own web browser and email client, both attributes that are common with Operating Systems.
On the MySQL/Vi side, things are more like this:
Keep this technology focused on its purpose, lean and mean
In this camp, there's far less bloat. It's very clear (most of the time) what the technology is supposed to do, and installing/configuring/using the technology is centered around the core purpose of that technology.
What's the benefit? In theory, a well made piece of technology that does its job in an efficient manner.
What's the disadvantage? "Is that all it can do??!" There are less features, harder integrate third-party components, and it's harder to add that stuff in (a pluggable what?!)
Of course, it's not as simple as all that, and there are plenty shades of gray. MySQL has a pluggable storage engine framework (I heard it's drag and drop), and Oracle still has a RDBMS somewhere in there (if I pick on MySQL, I can pick on Oracle).
Lest I'm misunderstood, I'm simply saying that these technologies seem to represent a particular way of looking at developing software over time.
It seems to be generally true that commercial vendors tend to gravitate towards the "be-all/end-all" way of looking at things, but I'm pretty sure no one made millions licensing Emacs.
The pragmatists amongst us (myself included) would probably say:
- Use what works for you.
If you know it, and you have it, use it!
- Save the baby, throw out the bathwater
At the end of the day, keep what you need, ditch the rest.
- Can't we all just get along?
Prejudice works both ways, everyone thinks their technology is the best.
Some after thoughts
(in no particular order, and with no particular point)
- It sure is hard to switch to an alternative technology after you have one under your belt. I've attempted to grasp Emacs a few times, just can't do it. I'd like to learn Python or Ruby, but it's sure hard when I can just use Perl.
- I really try to be neutral on these holy wars, but hey, everyone believes in something.
- *flashes the Vi gang-sign to Paul Tuckfield*