Reading a paper on DBMS architectures, and I quote:

"In the seventies, the scientific discussion
in the database (DB) area was dominated
by heavy arguments concerning the most
suitable data model, sometimes called a
religious war."

... and here I thought language argument was a religious war. :/

ref:
Härder, T.: DBMS Architecture – The Layer Model and its Evolution

Times are changing. Arguments are changing.

Heh, there's lots. It tends to go thus:

- Everyone uses their own thing
- Religious arguments ensue over which is best
- Some kind of standard (or a few standards) emerge, these slowly become generally accepted and then used without much question
- Few years / decades pass
- Someone says "Hey, this standard way sucks, look at my own thing I made instead!"
- Everyone else also makes their own thing
- Rinse and repeat.

It happens with everything - languages, filing systems, operating systems, paradigms, design patterns, database patterns, heck even in CPU architectures (with the like of riscv we may even see that kick off again in the medium to long term.)

wars is in our blood :3

@AlmondSauce That's just how things improve. You create a bunch of solutions, some of the less terrible ones become standard, you go on to "improve" something else, when the faults of the current situation become serious issues you revise it and generate a bunch of solutions again most of which are basically worse than the current standard, then hope that the next emerging standard isn't worse than the previous one.

@AlmondSauce
Pains me to say it (I’m all team .net/Azure), but you forgot a step which happens during “Few years / decades pass” :

- A big company realises the full potential of standard and while still supporting it adds a proprietary layer. Which is good enough to convince a lot of enterprise clients use it. It becomes defacto for couple of years, until: “Your next line”