The future is here already, and has been for decades.
These non-relational database structures are not a new or revolutionary idea. The same concepts have long been implemented in systems like LDAP, X.500, and document-oriented databases like Lotus Domino.
The real mystery is the recent trend towards completely reinventing the wheel. For instance, LDAP (the protocol) is incredibly efficient, standardized, and well supported on most development platforms. It provides a standard query / filter language, facilities for scoping, and data updates. There are standardized exchange formats, wide availability of OSS and commercial management tools, and multiple server implementations.
Yet, there seems to be a great interest in developing from scratch highly proprietary and non-portable alternatives that do exactly the same thing (or less). These systems ignore decades of research and lessons learned through practical implementation.
The real issue though is that direct comparison of the two models is inherently flawed. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, each excelling in situations that the other falls short. Looking at them as complementary models is perhaps a better approach.
As I started reading the article my very first thought went to Lotus Notes (never developed in it, but had friends that did). I agree with you, that they are complementary models is probably a better approach to the comparison.
These non-relational database structures are not a new or revolutionary idea. The same concepts have long been implemented in systems like LDAP, X.500, and document-oriented databases like Lotus Domino.
The real mystery is the recent trend towards completely reinventing the wheel. For instance, LDAP (the protocol) is incredibly efficient, standardized, and well supported on most development platforms. It provides a standard query / filter language, facilities for scoping, and data updates. There are standardized exchange formats, wide availability of OSS and commercial management tools, and multiple server implementations.
Yet, there seems to be a great interest in developing from scratch highly proprietary and non-portable alternatives that do exactly the same thing (or less). These systems ignore decades of research and lessons learned through practical implementation.
The real issue though is that direct comparison of the two models is inherently flawed. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, each excelling in situations that the other falls short. Looking at them as complementary models is perhaps a better approach.