This blog post from Markus Winand gives some context for one of his Tweets:
MongoDB seems to be as bad for NoSQL as MySQL is for SQL.— Markus Winand (@MarkusWinand) September 30, 2013
I believe there are NoSQL systems out there that greatly benefit from the idea that SQL is bad and not using SQL is good. On other words, they offer “not using SQL” as their main advantage. MongoDB seems to be one of them. Just my perception.One of Winand's main points is that MySQL is a bad representative of SQL; in other words, people attribute MySQL problems to SQL as a whole, when SQL may not be as bad as people perceive it to be. On the same note, Winand argues, MongoDB may not be an adequate representative of NoSQL as a whole. Winand points to notorious criticisms, like "MongoDB is Web Scale."
However, as with a number of the recent criticisms of MongoDB, Winand's post focuses on perceptions of MongoDB - some from users, and some encouraged by MongoDB - rather than the technology itself. Over-hype and exaggeration of usefulness may be valid things to criticize, but there seems to be a lot of criticism of MongoDB focused on the way it's presented.
So, what do you think this is all about? Is it an issue of MongoDB being popular - things that get a lot of use will inevitably get a lot of criticism - or is there more to it? It probably is true that having a primary representative like MongoDB or MySQL will lend flaws that are specific to the representative to the entire field, and those distinctions are worth noting, but is that really a problem?
People make snap judgments based on popular opinion - or based on nothing, really - all the time. Even if they encourage the popular opinion, can we really blame MongoDB for that? It seems possible that many critics are placing blame on a thing people like, when what they really have a problem with is the people.