I&#x27;d say that non-sql databases did indeed explode in popularity, so this does get the nod.  However, I think the prediction may have gone a little too far.  Have they <i>surpassed</i> relational databases?<p>I&#x27;m getting the impression that a lot of people are reconsidering the &quot;nosql&quot; approach, as well, sticking with (or reverting to) sql databases, including simple ol&#x27; mysql.  This was an interesting interview that showed up on HN a few days ago.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;s-c-a-l-e&#x2F;github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-nomadic-tech-team-4db562b96dcd" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;medium.com&#x2F;s-c-a-l-e&#x2F;github-scaling-on-ruby-with-a-n...</a><p>I was never all that enthusiastic about &quot;nosql&quot;, partly because personality wise, I tend to be reluctant about new technologies, and I liked a system based on relational algebra, all that.  That said, &quot;nosql&quot; wasn&#x27;t really meant as a <i>NO</i> to sql.   I get the feeling that the term got away from them a bit, largely because &quot;you-know-sometimes-there-really-are-better-solutions-than-sql-for-some-problems-and-you-might-want-to-consider-them&quot; isn&#x27;t really an option as a catch phrase.<p>That said, nosql absolutely did grow massively in popularity, it did move from the fringes to mainstream use, so as a prediction, yeah, I&#x27;d agree this should score a few points.