| I think you are complete right, but maybe I believe so in part because of my age. To me the general undertone in all the arguments I have heard over time is either "we now have this tools/service solving that us" or "why would I need to learn all this (complicated) stuff, I've done fine without it". The first variant I just never have seen being true, but that might be hard to see by someone who is reluctant to learn/understand anything about relational data organization. The second variant I can to some degree sympathize with, because it does seems daunting to me, how much time/effort the young kids these days have to spend on keeping up with the ever changing landscape of new smoke and mirrors technology (very little of it fundamentally new or innovative). Learning something that appears to be far removed from the tools they already know will no doubt feel like a challenge and maybe therefore also as a waste of time. However, the apparent resistance to learn about something as relational data organization (because this is actually about far more than just SQL), feels to me as rather troubling regarding the quality of software design. The way I've hears some people talk about SQL and relational data organization, made me even wonder if they should even be allowed to call themselves software engineers. To me they sounded like architects telling me that concrete is such an outdated and unstructured mess that they no longer need (to know about) it to design buildings. The problem is, buildings and software will be build anyways (for there is a need) .. and if their architects can get away with saying they don't need to know about some fundamental theory, then good luck with the quality of that software. No amount of tools/services that supposedly abstract the challenges of good structured data design away, can ever solve that problem. |