Well, slow adoption is mostly due to safety and is rarely related to features or "how good" the product is. Even more with databases which are the most critical parts of any system.
Big companies stick with RDBMS because those have been around for ages, have proved their robustness, are covered by support and maintenance from other big companies... Microsoft just can't get bankrupt so there's no risk that they would suddenly drop support of SQL Server! Smaller companies and start-ups who have taken the NoSQL-ish path mainly use MongoDB for very similar reasons. Eventually it's all about the trust you can put in a brand; Mongo is very visible, used by a very large number of businesses, they even have their own conference, so if they mess up they have a lot to lose... which makes us think that they will be particularly cautious not to mess up! Cheers, Thomas On Monday, February 13, 2017 at 12:41:43 AM UTC+8, Kevin Sheppard wrote: > > Thanks Thomas. I share your sentiment in wishing it was available as a > service, but I suppose that convenience is on the horizon. > > I can't help but feel nervous when I come across systems like these but > uptake is so low; it makes me wonder what is wrong with it despite it being > so awesome (on paper). Perhaps some unseen warts? I guess I'll see for > myself (if there are any). Excited to give this + my Groovy code a try. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ArangoDB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
