[dspillett]

> I always used PostgreSQL even though most were on MySQL

That far back mysql and postgres were not even close to being a like-for-like comparison. One was a proper database, with things like referential integrity and a type system that didn't count the 31st of February to be a valid date, and the other was a glorified ndbm with some structure, a SQL interface, and was very very fast at running simple single-table SELECT statements.

[threeseed]

Yet for most users none of that mattered.

Because they would just use a SQL library or ORM which hid all of these details.

[dspillett]

Correct. I said it was not a valid comparison if talking about proper databases, not that mysql was irredeemably bad and no use to anyone back then.

There were though a lot of people who probably should have used a better DB but used mysql through knowing no better or nothing else being available on cheap shared hosts. Many got lucky and got by but more than a few ended up running into problems or spending time implementing things (complete with bugs for later joy) in their BLL that really belong in the data layer. Similarly using ORMs away from their areas of core advantage is asking for problems later (though one of their core advantages _is_ to help with a quick turnaround on an MVP or other PoC, especially if you aren't much knowledgeable about DB design considerations at the time, so I can't criticise that much).