It's equally wrong to say the claim is correct because it's based on somebody else's preferred categorization. Do you see "SQL" anywhere in "small, fast, reliable"? They made a broad claim. They should be the ones to provide evidence or clarification. Why are those standards only applied to those who point out that the claim is unproven? That seems a lot like changing the terms of the argument (asymmetrically!) to fit a preordained conclusion.
> Do you see "SQL" anywhere in "small, fast, reliable"?
I see it all over the place -- the front page of SQLite.org -- where the motto "Small. Fast. Reliable. Choose any three." is presented. Here's the first paragraph of body text from the page:
(emphasis added) "SQLite is a software library that implements a self-contained, serverless, zero-configuration, transactional SQL database engine. SQLite is the most widely deployed SQL database engine in the world. The source code for SQLite is in the public domain."
The place they are telling you that the context is "SQL database engines" rather than just "database engines" is the same place they tell you that the context is something related to database engines as opposed to, say, automobiles.
