noteworthy wrote:

Database management systems are 20 years out of date and should be completely rewritten to reflect modern use of computers.

Oracle and SQL Server come from an age when online transaction processing dominated and required techniques such as multi-threading and transaction locking.

Persistent storage is unnecessary ...

Abandon SQL; use Ruby.

Note that the paper under review here is actually from last September. It has become "news" again because of the authors' recent criticism of Google (and MapReduce, specifically).

I'd actually like to see this same technique applied to everything. Refactor Everything! Refactoring technology and processes yields application of innovation, which is the single highest risk factor for any R&D (that all the R doesn't find a D).

Everything in our lives could be vastly improved upon and this would fit in nicely with the product replacement cycle. Just think of your refrigerator. It basically uses technology that is about 70 years old. The only thing that's really improved in it over all these decades is modest efficiency in the process (better assembly and construction of components, some materials improvements for insulation and overall weight) and some reliability. But if you looked at applying other research to solving the same problem (preserve food efficiently and cheaply), you'd get a whole host of new capabilities and fundamentally change the way that the device works. You could use Stirling engines, more adaptable materials, and inventory management functions that would create a more economically and ecologically friendly device, which would also improve people's productivity and one could argue improve the food production process as well.

There are thousands of these kinds of things all around us that go languishing. I agree that there's some truth in the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy, but if you're looking for a way to improve life, the economy, and champion innovation, there's no better way. Why has the internal combustion engine only really improved power and modestly improved efficiency after 100+ years? Why is it only now that we're looking at radically innovating at that space? Ironically by looking at ideas that were around when the combustion engine was created and were passed over by the market at the time.

Unfortunately, I think most people are content with small incremental improvement over decades instead of constant rigorous refactoring of products and services. Obviously there's margin and efficiency to be gained by figuring out how to make the same thing faster, cheaper, and planned for obsolescence, but I wonder what the financial model would look like if you practiced vigorous disruption on yourself. What if you completely redesigned the product or service from the ground up every 3 years? At that point, the cost economies are probably dialed in and your depreciation curves are at zero (unless it's heavy equipment or plant). Might as well throw it all out and figure out what's the absolute best way to build it TODAY, with what we know NOW and what we have at our fingertips at this MOMENT. I'd be willing to bet that your growth and profitability looks even better. Maybe even breaking the typical S curve that all businesses go through with a product as it matures and proliferates into the market.

RE: Get me rewrite!