I don't think the problem is I misunderstand them, I just disagree with them I disagree with them on what is the minimum viable product for a database. I come

I don't think the problem is I misunderstand them, I just disagree with them I disagree with them on what is the minimum viable product for a database. I come a storage and service provider background where failures are treated very harshly (usually death of companies for singular mistakes) so I take releasing a product that stores customer data very seriously. To be honest this is the biggest attraction for me to RethinkDB. They waited a sufficiently long amount of time with a commercially backed team of very competent engineers that obviously have the required background to sit down and DESIGN a database. The query language generates a non-turing complete language with a clean AST the has all the right deterministic characteristics to implement a powerful planner/optimizer. Their on disk format has been abit in flux but the core design is excellent and you can see that it has been optimized for very fast range queries. Even the API protocol and serialization were designed with care, not to mention the excellent ReQL language and attention to detail when integrating drivers into the host language. Which is the other thing I tend to dislike about Mongo, it reeks of lack of design. The journalling effort for instance as you pointed out is very adhoc, this goes for GridFS and alot of the other features they have integrated into the codebase. These are smells that I can't ignore when looking at a product that I need to trust with my data. The counter argument is to not trust it with your data. But I am yet to find a reason where that makes sense where another datastore wouldn't be a better choice.