And in the other thread you were called out (by me and others) for this false statement, because you are wrong. What really matters is: "scalable enough". Tha

And in the other thread you were called out (by me and others) for this false statement, because you are wrong. What really matters is: "scalable enough". That's a big difference because today's hardware is very forgiving. Today you can do really stupid things, like write a chat-service that dispatches all messages through an on-disk database, and it will work. Ten years ago that thing wouldn't even have gotten off the ground. The question remains whether your little toy project will scale to worthwhile workloads. You know, to serve a purpose (novel concept). This is where this CouchDB nonsense falls apart. Neither would it possibly scale to any worthwhile number of users. Nor does it present any particular elegant or interesting programming concepts. It's not more or less than the implementation of a horrible anti-pattern. I don't mind that (we had a good laugh, after all) but the author should really stop trying to sell this under the slogan of "Simple wins" - as if any of what he did was a good idea. Simple did not "win" anything here. And to add insult to injury: His solution is not even "simple" by any means. I can write the same thing in under 100 lines of Python or Perl, without involving an esoteric database, and it would scale better.