Then you’d say, “Hells yeahs, Tapirs are cuddly”. You´d be wrong... This essay is long and disorganized. To spare those who would other wise have to suffer th

Then you’d say, “Hells yeahs, Tapirs are cuddly”. You´d be wrong... This essay is long and disorganized. To spare those who would other wise have to suffer through it the trouble: It's basically a defense of the the term 'NoSQL' as a description of the collective of hash-key stores, documents dbs, etc that have been gaining popularity of late. His claim: 'NoSQL' represents some kind of escape from the oppressiveness of SQL and is a radical break with accepted DB technologies. It's posts like this that bother me most about about the NoSQL crowd. Hash-key stores, document DBs, and other equally innovative things have been in existence and in use for decades. Periodically, people try to promote these technologies as replacements for RDBMs and each time, we learn that while they have their place, so do RDBMs. NoSQL is not revolutionary; it's a practical extension of pre-existent technologies that solves a set of problems that current RDBMs don't address, while RDBMs still solve the set of problems that they were meant to address. All this revolution nonsense is just that, and that's why people are so worked up on both sides.