Not really. The NoSQL movement is based on the assumption that the limitations of MySQL apply to all databases. Their ideas of what an RDBMS is are 15-20 years out of date - really.
It's more based on the assumption that the limitations of MySQL should apply to all databases.
I've worked 2 places with Oracle stored procedures. At both places, they were a giant nonperformant mess of spaghetti that could never be cleaned up because changing things == breaking things. And since all of the application logic had been written as transactional SQL with lots of joins over normalized tables, it was gridlock heaven inside the DB and adding more cores to the single machine barely even helped.
Well, it's a subjective judgment, and the anecdotes I've seen/heard are 90% in one direction, with the other 10% coming from people who make their living dealing with PL/SQL.
Good apocryphal quote, it's impossible to convince someone of something if their job depends on it not being true.
Part of NoSQL is about scalability using commodity hardware and without spending tons of money on licenses. Sure Oracle can scale, but people want those features for free.
Paraphrasing Zawinski, it depends what your time is worth. Remember in business, the concepts of "cheap" and "expensive" simply don't exist. A thing is "worth the money" or "not".
I've worked 2 places with Oracle stored procedures. At both places, they were a giant nonperformant mess of spaghetti that could never be cleaned up because changing things == breaking things. And since all of the application logic had been written as transactional SQL with lots of joins over normalized tables, it was gridlock heaven inside the DB and adding more cores to the single machine barely even helped.