[Discuss] Are SQL/NoSQL databases dead?

[John Abreau]

Are public roads and highways dead, with regard to feature development? Perhaps "dead" is not the best word choice. A more accurate word might be "mature". 

It's not a bad thing for a technology to be mature. Once it reaches that stage, it can be treated as infrastructure, and new things can be built on top of it that rely on the foundation to remain stable. 


On Jan 8, 2014, at 9:25 AM, markw at mohawksoft.com wrote:

> 'm not saying they are "dead" as in no one is using them, I'm more
> thinking they are dead with regard to feature development.
> 
> PostgreSQL and MySQL and the commercial databases just seem less
> "important" these days with things like MongoDB and Cassandra. Don't get
> me wrong, I think the NoSQL crowd are fairly delusional because eventually
> these NoSQL databases will all have SQL front ends and ACID
> characteristics are vital to any real database. (but I digress)
> 
> Traditional ACID SQL databases have more or less peaked. Data stores like
> the NoSQL ilk are pretty much done feature wise as well. Stonebreaker's
> next project is getting very little traction.
> 
> Have databases become just another "word processor" like application where
> almost all the standard offerings are really good enough?   I mean, jeez,
> tomcat, apache, php, etc. are all jus good enough and there are no new
> "must have" features as well.
> 
> I guess the real question is what's left or are infrastructure components
> pretty much done?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at blu.org
> http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss