I understand what you say. I mostly agree, but just wanted to push the semantics to the limit ;)
>> Yes, but by that definition every group of bits on a computer is a database. The word sort of loses any value.
Not exactly. We need to define the atomicity we would like to deal with. That is:
- if a bit is what the atomic unit of data is, then a byte is a database
- if a byte is what the atomic unit of data is, then a collection of bytes in properly defined structure is a database. For example, a JPEG file or little-endian or big-endian datatypes.
>> I mean a HN comment is also a database, a text is a database, a picture of rocks arranger i the shape of names is a database.
If a word is the atomic unit, then a comment can be a database. If the comment itself is an atomic unit, then the thread can be a database.
>> Yes, but by that definition every group of bits on a computer is a database. The word sort of loses any value.
Not exactly. We need to define the atomicity we would like to deal with. That is:
- if a bit is what the atomic unit of data is, then a byte is a database
- if a byte is what the atomic unit of data is, then a collection of bytes in properly defined structure is a database. For example, a JPEG file or little-endian or big-endian datatypes.
>> I mean a HN comment is also a database, a text is a database, a picture of rocks arranger i the shape of names is a database.
If a word is the atomic unit, then a comment can be a database. If the comment itself is an atomic unit, then the thread can be a database.