> > The term NoSQL is meaningless. It only means that a database is not SQL (d'oh) but people (such as the author of the article) use it as if it meant anything

> > The term NoSQL is meaningless. It only means that a database is not SQL (d'oh) but people (such as the author of the article) use it as if it meant anything beyond that. […] > Except that it does not. It does mean „Not Only SQL“, and not „no SQL“. That's a (silly, IMO) retronym. "No SQL" means literally no SQL in English, and that's all the original "NoSQL" DB evangelism meant, too. Later, as they found their paradigm more or less sucks, the proponents retrofitted -- more or less hastily, frantically, or desperately -- SQL to it. The original dBase and Paradox formats were also databases, and didn't have SQL: They were the canonical "NoSQL" databases. Are you claiming they're now somehow "Not Only SQL"?