[jacobian]

Like I said, I'm a big PostgreSQL fan. However, I really don't think you're giving the MySQL developers enough credit here. Smart people -- and I maintain that the MySQL developers are a whole hell of a lot smarter than you or I -- can have differing opinions about trade-offs, and speed-vs-correctness is one of the oldest.

Proper implementations of foreign keys are transactions are slower, and many applications really don't need those features. Like you, I disagree with the choice to value speed over correctness, but unlike you I don't see it as an indication that the MySQL developers were idiots or immature.

Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular? It's not for a lack of alternatives. It's because MySQL offered a feature -- speed and ease of use -- that simply wasn't available elsewhere.

[gdulli]

> Or, to look at it another way: if MySQL's such a load of crap, how'd it ever get so popular?

Justin Bieber.

[kijinbear]

Even worse, IE6. The fact that it initially offered crappy implementations of some features that users were looking for doesn't make it any less crappy.

[rimantas]

This comparison is right in the sense what it gets wrong: the time and context. IE6 is sure crappy by today's standards, but back in 2001 it was the best browser you could get: Netscape lost it since release of Netscape 4 which was the crap. And hey, IE6 even got box model fixed! Too bad it had no competition and stagnated till Firefox appeared and started kicking IE's ass. In similar vein a lot of "criticism" of MySQL is done by those not aware of the latest developments of this DB, different engines it supports and different modes it can work in. Well, at least "MySQL does not support transactions" cannot be heard anymore.