[qooleot]

" never said popularity was an argument for quality. You did."

I'd tend to think your statement:

"And if MySQL wasn't robust then YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Alibaba, LinkedIn etc wouldn't be using it for core parts of their infrastructure. It's definitely robust."

..points out that many (popular) sites use it, and a prerequisite is robustness, which thesaurus-wise, sounds a lot like quality.

I get that

a) you didn't actually say it, and

b) you could mean something much more specific, such as "companies with many highly-starred, complex open source projects which have also re-written major parts of their tech stack, but chose to leave mysql in place".

I know thats a bit more verbose, but it just seems to obviously close to the other author's interpretation with the ambiguity of the statement.

[philsnow]

> many (popular) sites use it

threeseed's argument is not

    this handful of popular companies use it, therefore it is good

but rather

    this handful of companies, each of which is considered by some/many to be 'excellent' or 'top', use it, therefore it is good