> 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“.
@chrisandchris is correct. NoSQL means "Not Only SQL"
Furthermore, the article is uninformed and writes as if "NoSQL" is an alternative paradigm to SQL. In fact, NoSQL covers a whole range of paradigms and approaches, from key-value, to document, to graph, to more exotic flavors. Some of which can even be queried with SQL
ACID can be a feature of other database paradigms as well, if necessary. With MongoDB Atlas, for instance, an engineer can ensure that data consistency is high priority across clusters. Or not, if that's not important.
On top of all that, table-based database management systems are designed to prioritize saving hard drive space over cpu cycles. As cpu cycles have become more expensive relative to "hard drive space", the need for this kind of database has declined.
> > 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"?
Except that it does not. It does mean „Not Only SQL“, and not „no SQL“.