[saghm]

I'm not sure I totally understand the timeline you're describing, but my understanding is that relational databases themselves were only invented in the 1970s. Is your reference to the 60s just giving context for when he started but before this link happened (with the idea that the problems predated the solution)?

[evanelias]

Non-relational databases existed in the 60s, and many programmers who worked in the 60s presumably continued working into the 70s, so either way I don't see any problems with the timeline GP mentions.

[saghm]

Sure, I never claimed that relational databases were the first ones. I was confused because they were trying to explain a specific timeline different from the article, but only mentioned a single time period that didn't seem likely to be what they intended, and I thought it might make sense to clarify what that time period was. I'm sure this isn't the case for everyone, but at least to me, it's surprising not to be explicit in the information they were trying to claim the article glossed over.

[formerly_proven]

Hierarchical databases, which are often more similar to what we would consider a file system today, predate relational ones by a decade or two.

[saghm]

The parent comment was pretty explicit in what types of databases it was talking about:

> I should add that the bond between relational databases and spinning rust goes back further.

It's certainly possible I failed to infer the point they were trying to make, but personally I would find it confusing for them to only mention one type of database (relational) and one time period (the 60s) if they actually meant a different type of database or a different time period in their central point of there being a relationship with, in their words, relational databases and spinning rust, in a specific time period other than what the article describes.

[formerly_proven]

Relational databases didn't exist in the 60s but if you change/strike that one word, the entire comment becomes cromulent.

[saghm]

There are some circumstances where striking a word pretty clearly changes the intent (e.g. if I removed the word "relational" from your comment in the same way, it would be pretty clearly not what you're trying to say), and there are others where it's fine. If you're capable of figuring this out easily, these types of questions probably don't seem necessary to you, but when I ask questions like the one I did to gain clarify, I'm not being pedantic for it's own sake. Trying harder to understand what others are saying is a genuine attempt to improve communication on my part.

Without going out of my way to infer more intent than you're stating, it's not clear if you're actually saying that you're confident this is what the parent comment was intending or if you're just proposing it's one plausible explanation. I can think of a few other ones as well, and my point in asking was to try to understand which one they actually meant. If I were to go out on a limb and try to infer your actual intent though, it honestly seems like you're intentionally trying to come across as dismissive based on the presumption that I was intentionally trying to be difficult. Having to make this sort of judgment is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in the first place by asking clarifying questions though, so it's a bit jarring to be getting these types of terse responses from someone who wasn't the original commenter I was responding to that don't really help me understand the situation at all and only make me more confused about why someone would take the time to respond to what I said without really addressing my actual question.