Also, as someone who chooses between Parquet and Delta on a fairly regular basis, I can say from experience that there are as many situations where both are viable options than there are situations where such a comparison is invalid. So, it's hardly an apples to oranges comparison. At worst it's maybe a pomelos to oranges comparison.
Delta Lake is a storage framework that uses Parquet files. Parquet files are a thing, but Delta Lake files are not a thing. The Delta Lake framework uses Parquet files, plus some additional stuff (transaction log, checkpoint files) that enable capabilities that Parquet files alone do not.
That collection of files is called a "Delta table". If the title of this was, "Benefits of Delta Tables vs. Parquet Files Alone", and the article was revised to be more careful about not conflating Delta Lake and Parquet, I think that would benefit everyone.
I think that the people elsewhere in this thread who are trying to be pedantic about this are maybe more familiar with some of the individual open source technologies that are used in data lake applications than they are with conventions around how these technologies get assembled into a full-fledged data management system in a business setting?
In other words, it seems like people who are trying to talk about the forest are getting downvoted and picked on by a bunch of folks who seem to maintain that there is no forest, only trees.
