[jazoom]

I agree with TekMol that it's an important point. Nowadays we have new types of SQL databases emerging. Some examples:

TiDB (distributed)

CockroachDB (distributed)

Crate (uses SQL but isn't even relational)

They all use SQL.

Picking between these and more established SQL databases is worthy of discussion.

Heck, based on what I see on Hacker News, picking between the established ones generates a lot of discussion, usually with people preferring Postgres over MySQL, etc.

Then there's SQLite, which is completely different again.

OP probably has a favourite database as a go-to regardless of the application, but for some projects SQLite might be a better fit than the others, for example. That would warrant discussion.

In conclusion, I believe you were too harsh to TekMol.

Edit: Fix autocorrect fails and add clarity.

[beaconstudios]

one of the community practices here is that you should take the most charitable interpretation of what is written. This precludes nitpicking. It's clear that the OP was referring to "I just use SQL" in terms of picking the most mature/standard database approach (relational databases) instead of getting caught up in the quagmire of niche and specialist database schemas.

[jazoom]

That might not be so obvious to someone who isn't familiar with SQL databases. To those people, the "nitpick" added clarity.