> They outright lied in their documentation about the guarantees.
> It wasn't the being early product part, it was the misrepresenting the truth part that hurt their credibility.
That's why I replied to the person you're responding to that his view of software development is cartoonish, but I don't think he got it.
> the problem was that authors of it had no idea about databases when they started their work
Speaking of which, have you heard of influxdb? It's going down the exact same route.
yep I heard of it and had similar period of excitement I had with Mongo. Although when they were postponing addition of distributed functionality I lost interest. You can't design a good distributed system as an addon, you need to think about it from day 1.
Yes?
The problem was not that MongoDB was young, the problem was that authors of it had no idea about databases when they started their work. They stored data in RAM and get fastest benchmarks, because they didn't worry about persisting the data on disk. They outright lied in their documentation about the guarantees.
It wasn't the being early product part, it was the misrepresenting the truth part that hurt their credibility.
DynamoDB for example is much younger than MongoDB, and doesn't suffer from this.