> Publishing benchmarks was also forbidden
Seriously? I find this absurd, but I have no reason to think you aren't being accurate.
That is some corporate paranoia.
> The Licensee hereby agrees ... it will not: ... (j) publicly display or communicate the results of internal performance testing or other benchmarking or performance evaluation of the Software;
Also trade-offs are rarely mentioned in benchmark numbers– e.g., great write throughput, at the expense of: ?.
It's fun to be cynical about stuff like this, but it's rarely as simple as "Ellison didn't react well to that and decided to forbid benchmarks".
So you kind of have to wonder why Cognitect is going Oracle on us..
The most obvious explanation is that Datomic just doesn't perform well and they don't want people to know.
Databases are complex programs, and if I ever wrote one, it would be infuriating for someone to pick it up, assume it was "just like MySQL" and then write a blog post crapping on it because it failed to meet their expectations.
So what? Somehow PostgreSQL is doing fine despite that.
Which is worse publicity for Cognitect: people publishing bad benchmarks or Cognitect forbidding benchmarks Oracle style?
So in this world, its sensible to say "benchmarks are uninformative and misleading - your mileage will almost certainly vary"
>the license at least used to forbid even saying "Datomic" aloud in public.