Awful post. His example for why NOSQL is "difficult" to start with, is a company with a huge RDBMS trying to transition. Had they started with NOSQL, it would

Awful post. His example for why NOSQL is "difficult" to start with, is a company with a huge RDBMS trying to transition. Had they started with NOSQL, it would have been easy to architect around that from the beginning, rather than cramming it in later. He then goes on to argue that it's much easier to transition to NOSQL later, which is the exact opposite of his example. NOSQL isn't one catchall group. There are different tools there for different jobs. His arguments rest on the assumption that NOSQL is hard(er). If it's not hard, and it solves a problem, then it's not premature optimization, it's just optimization. There are certainly situations where using a NOSQL database to start with gives you a competitive advantage and makes things easier down the road. This same argument is made every time a new technology comes onto the scene. People who made a living using something else will argue that learning the new thing is too hard, and isn't worth the time. If he doesn't want to bother with learning about new tools, that's fine, but it's silly for him to argue that learning them is pointless or a waste of time.