I could just throw in a mention of Betteridge's law, but the question being asked is rather nuanced and is worth actually answering: No, it is not. SQL is a wa

I could just throw in a mention of Betteridge's law, but the question being asked is rather nuanced and is worth actually answering: No, it is not. SQL is a way of thinking about your data, and querying against those assumptions and mistakes. If you think SQL is just a dumb row storage engine that you write garbage SQL for (ex: every single MySQL use I've ever seen), then you failed SQL 101. A good proper use of a real SQL database (I'm obviously a huge pg and sqlite fan, but no hate towards DBA wizards that fight Oracle, DB2, and MSSQL every day at work) can shepherd your data, maintain its consistency, and conquer some of the weirdest footgun anti-patterns that keep showing up in business code that use 'modern' nosql databases. To be absolutely fair, all technologies are a set of tradeoffs, and you have to understand them; if you don't, it will be fatal. Not today, probably not tomorrow, but in 3 years when your startup runway ran away. As technology advances, the meaning of those tradeoffs change; how I would answer some questions for people 10-15 years ago isn't how I'd answer them today. Scalable DBs that make other tradeoffs are slowly being eaten by the march of technology. When someone picked up a mishmash of parts that don't fit, a nosql row store here, a nosql columnar store there, a dedicated event logger somewhere, all glued together with some message passing bus: its all people who don't understand the tradeoffs because they never learned the thought process behind how to use SQL effectively. If you're asking "is SQL becoming a niche skill", you're really asking, "is thinking a niche skill?". Half of HN seems to absolutely adore the fake AI scams and willingly threw themselves down that flight of stairs, so I'm worried some people here really do think the answer to "thinking is a niche skill" is yes, and a dying one at that.