The "NoSQL vs SQL debate" name will eventually change. Instead of isolating SQL from the other datastores, the debate will move toward discussing which database

The "NoSQL vs SQL debate" name will eventually change. Instead of isolating SQL from the other datastores, the debate will move toward discussing which database is the right tool for the job, where SQL/relational databases will have a specific role. Putting relational databases into their own group is silly. I believe this came about because relational databases have dominated for so long, and this has caused developers to try and fit every problem into the relational database model. In the early days of the Web, choosing a database meant choosing between relational database management systems -- Oracle was king but expensive, Microsoft SQL Server if you were on a Microsoft stack, and PostgreSQL or MySQL were the primary open-source options (with one being a real RDBMS while the other was basically just an SQL interface to the file system). Ten years ago the RDBMS was the only good option so that's what everyone used even though many problems and programming languages didn't match up well with it -- it was like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You don't have to do that anymore so relational databases can stop being the one-size-fits-all solution, and instead we can move toward using them for the specialized cases where they're the right fit.