Sure, object-relational impedance mismatch is a problem, but if you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you need to propose alternatives. Luckily

Sure, object-relational impedance mismatch is a problem, but if you're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater, you need to propose alternatives. Luckily for us, this is not the author's only post... The author's followup article advocates instead for building your own in-process persistence system for each application, with no persistent data structure other than a (non-write-ahead) log, even for an application the size and scale of Stack Overflow itself: https://codeburst.io/doing-without-databases-in-the-21st-century-6e25cf495373 https://codeburst.io/doing-without-databases-in-the-21st-cen... I post this only because "name 20 things wrong with this article" might be a good take-home exercise for a student, or as a weeding exercise for recruiting... except that, on the off chance the student/candidate were to fail at said exercise and buy into the content unironically, I would have caused irreparable and irresponsible harm to their learning process, their future businesses, and the safety of their customers' data. Seriously, what we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding of ACID, of the very idea that a computer might crash at an arbitrary point in a program, of the general importance of distributed systems, of safe software deployment, of parallelism, and of the very idea that a schema might evolve over time. It saddens me to know that this type of advice exists and receives a platform.