Username or EmailPassword
I think that your comment reflects where the CLI vs. GUI debate gets complicated.
I get the distinct impression that there are two major camps that support the CLI. There are the enthusiasts, who seem the be enthralled by the novelty (though they may not admit as much, even to themselves), and then there are systems adminstrators who appreciate being able to manage and script systems in the same language (which includes the SQL crowd).
There are, of course, oddities. The AutoCAD people probably fit into that group (my recollection is that it uses a variant of LISP). I'm originally from the physical sciences where LaTeX is the medium of publication (a markup language which integrates moderately well into CLI) and that continually discusses data pipelines (which fits into the Unix philosophy for CLI utilities fairly well).
Now my highly biased opinion is that those 'oddities' hold the best hope of CLIs regaining a respectable foothold in the industry. A big part of the reason is that CLIs are a necessity: scientists and engineers require software systems that are so complex that it is difficult to create a managable GUI. Yet another reason is the diversity of the CLIs presented to those users. Some, like Unix, are based upon commands and parameters and pipes. Others, like IRAF, are based upon similar principles but offer stateful and visual ways to manage parameters (my understanding is that it's based upon VMS, though I don't know how similar it is to VMS). Even environments like Mathematica or Maple should enter the picture since, even though they are specialized and standalone applications,
And the list could go on. The only caveat is that most of their programming experience is limited to data processing.
Though your comment on SQL brought up another point: CLIs are much more common than most people think. In essence, any interactive programming language can be used as a CLI (e.g. Python).