Skip to content

Comment on What MongoDB got right

Comments

You can argue, and I would largely agree, that this is actually part of MongoDB's brilliant marketing strategy, of sacrificing engineering quality in order to get to market faster and build a hype machine, with the idea that the engineering will follow later.

Author nearly lost me here with this logic. Placing Marketing ahead of quality in something that is supposed to store a very valuable asset (data) is near insanity.

I get the mindset of "break fast", "release often", etc. in terms of customer facing features, but in something that is supposed to be a core part of your foundation, stability is if utmost importance. Otherwise nothing else works - and you lose customers, business, opportunities - because you can't look them up later.

Its not "brilliant marketing", its just marketing.

This is all true, but the success of MySQL shows pretty clearly that just because something is insane doesn't mean it's not good business.

I think the success of MySQL is due to there being fewer options for a period of time (the "dot.com boom"), and thus it became a popular choice to avoid commercial RDBMS costs.

I'm no MySQL fan when things like PostgreSQL are an option, but its probably more sane than some other currently popular choices.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.