I think I'd agree with a milder version of your post (I definitely don't see why you're getting negged here). I didn't like the phrase "noSql" when I first hea

I think I'd agree with a milder version of your post (I definitely don't see why you're getting negged here). I didn't like the phrase "noSql" when I first heard it (still don't, really), but once I realized the movement was really more about "notAlwaysSql", it started to make sense. People had been using an RDBMS almost reflexively for most kinds of persistence, and they don't always make sense. That said... some NoSQL may work better with OO, but so do some RDBMS schemas. I've had experiences where it's simple and almost 1:1 between object and table, and other times when I'm bending so far that I wonder why we're taking an OO approach at all. I don't think that I'd disagree with your claim that an RDBMS is a specialized system, but I'm not sure that various noSQL solutions are any less specialized. I agree, choose SQL for the right reasons, but you could just replace that with "choose your persistence approach for the right reasons".