On 2/15/2012 3:23 PM, Michael Kay wrote:
> One of the reasons O2 was a great project was that it took input from
> the functional database research rather than (as with other object
> databases) merely trying to be a persistent object-oriented
> programming language.
>
> Michael Kay
> Saxonica
I worked on one of those (ONTOS) for a few years - it was my first real
job, and it always seemed that we were struggling to find viable
applications for it (and customers!) Looking back now, I think the big
missing link was a query language: something really data-oriented seemed
to be called for. Instead ONTOS provided persistent C++ collection data
structures and assumed that would be sufficient, but it wasn't, and it
was just too hard to optimize every conceivable kind of C++ access to
remote storage. Our most successful competitor, Object Design, had
developed a memory-mapped storage that seemed to be the best thing going
in that arena, but even still I don't think it really handled joins and
indexing as well as RDBs had been doing for years.
-Mike
