SQL to NoSQL to NewSQL? Come on!
Earlier this month there were several articles published about the term "NewSQL" coined by the 451 Group in regard to a new class of vendors of high-performance, scalable database examined in its new report.
The group explains the meaning of the term in a post hawking the report. And ReadWriteWeb has expounded on the subject.
I wonder, is this stuff really necessary? Or is it just a backlash that can be viewed as part of a repeating pattern concerning traditional, established technologies, as Andrew J. Brust posited in a thoughtful piece about the NoSQL movement earlier this week. He wrote:
"So if older technologies are proven technologies, and if they can be repurposed to function like some of the newer ones, what causes such discomfort with them? Is it mere folly of younger developers? Are older developers building up barriers of vocabulary, APIs and accumulated, sometimes seldom used, features in their products, to keep their club an exclusive one?"
Anyway, the 451 Group noted that "like NoSQL, NewSQL is not to be taken too literally: the new thing about the NewSQL vendors is the vendor, not the SQL."
So, does that help clear things up? Personally, I don't want a new acronym that describes vendors, not technologies.
I hereby officially launch the NoNewSQL movment. It's all about encouraging enterprises to take advantage of cutting-edge, anti-acronym technologies in order to leverage market trends and forces to enhance business value while increasing ROI... .
What do you think? Enough with the SQL acronyms? Comment here or drop me a line.
Posted by David Ramel on 04/28/2011 at 3:30 PM