I'd say that non-sql databases did indeed explode in popularity, so this does get the nod. However, I think the prediction may have gone a little too far. Hav

I'd say that non-sql databases did indeed explode in popularity, so this does get the nod. However, I think the prediction may have gone a little too far. Have they surpassed relational databases? I'm getting the impression that a lot of people are reconsidering the "nosql" approach, as well, sticking with (or reverting to) sql databases, including simple ol' mysql. This was an interesting interview that showed up on HN a few days ago. https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-nomadic-tech-team-4db562b96dcd https://medium.com/s-c-a-l-e/github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-n... I was never all that enthusiastic about "nosql", partly because personality wise, I tend to be reluctant about new technologies, and I liked a system based on relational algebra, all that. That said, "nosql" wasn't really meant as a NO to sql. I get the feeling that the term got away from them a bit, largely because "you-know-sometimes-there-really-are-better-solutions-than-sql-for-some-problems-and-you-might-want-to-consider-them" isn't really an option as a catch phrase. That said, nosql absolutely did grow massively in popularity, it did move from the fringes to mainstream use, so as a prediction, yeah, I'd agree this should score a few points.