Cassandra, hard to use? I disagree completely. With that said, there are
definitely deficiencies in certain parts of the documentation, but nothing
that is a show stopper. We’ve been using Cassandra since the sub 1.0 days
and have had nothing but great things to say about it.

With that said, its an open source project; you get from it what you’re
willing to put in. If you just expect something that installs, asks a
couple of questions and you’re off to the races, Cassandra might not be for

If you’re willing to put in the time to understand how Cassandra works, and
how it fits into your use case, and if it is the right fit for your use
case, you’ll be more than happy, I bet.

If there are things that are lacking, that you can’t find a work around
for, submit a PR! That’s the beauty of open source projects.


On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 2:55 AM Oleksandr Shulgin <> wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 7:54 PM, Durity, Sean R <
>> wrote:
>> However, I think the shots at Cassandra are generally unfair. When I
>> started working with it, the DataStax documentation was some of the best
>> documentation I had seen on any project, especially an open source one.
> Oh, don't get me started on documentation, especially the DataStax one.  I
> come from Postgres.  In comparison, Cassandra documentation is mostly
> non-existent (and this is just a way to avoid listing other uncomfortable
> epithets).
> Not sure if I would be able to submit patches to improve that, however,
> since most of the time it would require me to already know the answer to my
> questions when the doc is incomplete.
> The move from DataStax to for docs is actually good, IMO, since
> the docs were maintained very poorly and there was no real leverage to
> influence that.
> Cheers,
> --
> Alex

Reply via email to