What? This article is all over the place and makes no sense. I really don’t understand what they think the word fad means - but from what I know (within the context that can be applied to SQL) is that it is something that people are enthusiastic about for a short period of time.

Where as they seem to pull out this quote:

Every new software is either a fad, or a small improvement over some UNIX concept or tool. And then argue about everything within the context of UNIX concepts and tools. Their main argument is basically: Simply put, because UNIX already allowed for arbitrary manipulation of relational data without the need for SQL. Which is also nonsense. UNIX has a lot of (very advanced) tools for plain text manipulation. But SQL is far more than just a way to manipulate text. And it has been around since 1976 (according to the article as well) and is still widely used today. That is 47 years. If 47 years is the definition used for a short period of time then basically all technology is a fad…

UNIX did have checksums. And that’s what blockchains are. So, blockchains are technically not a fad.

This is so wrong. Blockchains are far more than just some chcecksums. And arguably far more of a fad than SQL is as they have been around for a lot less time and have fallen out of favour by a lot of people. Though I would still not argue they are a fad.

While the term AI might be over-used, machine learning is not a fad. But make no mistake: Machine learning is just statistics.

Again, a while over simplification that misses the whole point of the subject. Then goes on to mention that

one of the first machine learning applications appeared in 1262, when St Cher (not to be confused with the American singer) employed 500 friars to assist him in creating the first concordance for the Bible.

And boils that down to:

In short, it’s like grep | sort for every word in a book.

Because, yes… ML is basically just all grep | sort… /s

And, wouldn’t you know, there is a UNIX command to generate concordances: ptr (or “permuted index”). Therefore, machine learning is not a fad. But SQL is.

So as far as I understand what argument they are trying to make - is that if a tool is basically a unix command it is not a fad? Which is not what the word means at all.

It’s only a matter of time before SQL becomes a relic of the past.

Yeah, I can see that. But I question the timescale they have in mind. Will it still be around in another 50 years? Probably. 100? Who knows. I would hope we have better tools by then.

In its place, we’ll see the development of new methods and techniques for managing relational data.

We already do see this. There are many new database technologies out there, from graph databases to object databases. But none have managed to displace relational databases or SQL. They are all just different tools we have available suitable for different situations.

SQL is not a fad. And the article fails to argue otherwise, if they even understand what that word means.