GSquared (11/17/2009)
The problem I've seen is that every non-relational data engine I've tested has had worse problems than SQL RDBMSs do. Sure, some of them solve some of the problems with SQL DBs, but in every case I've seen, the problems they replace them with are much, much worse.
Agreed. I strongly believe SQL ought to be replaced by new Relational DBMSs and languages. The trouble is, people who recognise the advantages of the relational model have traditionally defended its problem child: SQL. Even though SQL DBMSs are not truly relational at all.
If this situation continues then for better or worse the non-relational lobby will win the day. No question. They will deserve to succeed because the advocates of the relational model have mostly not proposed better relational alternatives to SQL. True there are some who have (Date and Darwen most notably of course), but they are mostly not associated with the "mainstream" of the industry and they tend to come in for some harsh criticism from the SQL lobby who go on the defensive when anyone starts pointing to SQL's glaring flaws.