I agree, ultimately it comes to everyone's own definition of "tyranny". :) I meant it as "not really having any defensible other choice". (While, of course for example CDB and BerkleyDB have "always" existed.)
I think nobody expects SQL's "market share" to fall to low levels, especially with noSQL requiring much deeper understanding of the data and it's planned use. NoSQL practically operates on a lower layer than SQL does.
Still, it's nice to see people thinking about data storage choices and not going blindly to MySQL/Oracle/etc!
Comments
I agree, ultimately it comes to everyone's own definition of "tyranny". :) I meant it as "not really having any defensible other choice". (While, of course for example CDB and BerkleyDB have "always" existed.)
I think nobody expects SQL's "market share" to fall to low levels, especially with noSQL requiring much deeper understanding of the data and it's planned use. NoSQL practically operates on a lower layer than SQL does.
Still, it's nice to see people thinking about data storage choices and not going blindly to MySQL/Oracle/etc!