4 ms·

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? Th

Why even write this? It's yet another convoluted use of the term and meaningless for SQLite of all things. Re: downvotes - what are people disagreeing with? That the term is not convoluted? That it's actually useful? That it helps to have more sub-definitions in an industry known for overloaded terms? I guarantee not a single person here has used "classic serverless" over "in-process" or "embedded" in their entire career.

NhanH 7y ago
I have seen that page for around 10 years or so (except the section that was added in 2018). The term has a very clear meaning and consistent uses within the docs (and consistent with my common sense understanding of the word too). It is not SQLite's fault that AWS and co muddles the water with their usage of the term
- IAmEveryone 7y ago
  It's not their fault. It's not anybody's fault. Language evolves. But if you wouldn't write it this way today, you should just change it, instead of drawing your readers into a pointless fight over semantics.
kick 7y ago
The article is from 2007, and explicitly calls out that the "neo" usage of the term is different than the original. If you scroll to the fifth line or so, you'll find the update. I didn't have to scroll on my device, though i can imagine there are some smaller devices that may not have that line on the screen when opening the page.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Where does it say 2007? Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material. Classic serverless has always been known as "in-process". The attempt at differences seems like adding marketing fluff rather than just removing the page entirely.
  - XelNika 7y ago
    It doesn't say 2007 anywhere, but the page is clearly at least that old. https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit... I also found material from 2004 with the term. https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.RichardHipp/slides/slides-all.html https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.Richard... > Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material It's not vague at all, the term makes sense to distinguish "in-process" from client/server models. The page also includes an explanation on the very next line. > Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been 100x more helpful Not everyone reading about a database product is a developer. A timestamp would not help anyone unfamiliar with the history of the serverless term. The alternative is to rewrite all instances of "serverless" in the documentation which is a waste of time. Modern "serverless" is a stupid buzzword and this page clearly serves as a protest.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all? And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of creating even more niche definitions.
      - XelNika 7y ago
        > I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all? "In-process" is meaningless to non-IT people, they don't even know what a process is. The SQLite dev probably created the term for marketing purposes, i.e. the exact same reason cloud providers adopted it 10 years later. > And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of creating even more niche definitions. I disagree. The term in relation to SQLite is clearly defined and predates the modern version, there's really no need to go back and change it. You're also disregarding the statement made by the SQLite dev by keeping this page and updating it with a clarification.
        7y ago
jamessb 7y ago
It describes an important architectural feature of SQLite. Also, this page was first written in 2007 (or perhaps earlier) [1], long before 'serverless' was applied to things like Amazon Lambda. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...
- manigandham 7y ago
  Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been more helpful than the updated section, or just deleting the page entirely. Or just title it as "SQLite is not client/server". Nobody goes around talking about "classic serverless" instead of "in-process" which has been around for decades.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
boublepop 7y ago
> It's yet another Actually seems more like the original than yet another. And also it makes more sense “serverless” as in “there is no server” and not as in “someone else manages the server for you”.
tjoff 7y ago
> another convoluted use of the term and meaningless Just as the term serverless itself? I find this, old version, superior.
espadrine 7y ago
It is not meaningless, but perhaps unclearly expressed. There is a fundamental point the the argument: you can distribute a database without segregating it. Three methods to building a 1M+ users webapp: 1. A centralized database, eg. PostgreSQL. Typically it has a single-writer beefy machine. 2. A decentralized newSQL. Tables are automatically sharded for writes, among a set of database-only servers. Typically offered as cloud: CosmosDB, Cloud Spanner, Aurora. 3. A distributed system segregated per app. Each user has a dedicated sqlite file. The third option would be simpler to code for, since it won’t have substantial scaling issues. It is also easier for a lambda-like platform to provide: load the sqlite corresponding to the authenticated user, and the lambda code, and execute the code in sandbox. Although one negative aspect for the AWS of this world would be lack of lock-in. It is relatively easy to migrate to another cloud service, or to mix cloud services.
- manigandham 7y ago
  The terms "in-process" or "embedded" have been used far longer than this page has existed. "serverless" is a marketing term, then and now.
TamDenholm 7y ago
The same reason supermarkets put "gluten free" on things like butter, water and vegetables. While it may seem stupid and obvious to those informed and educated, theres a point in everyones life where they dont know anything about a subject and they need a first step. Hopefully, its a first step in a deeper understanding and education on the subject at hand. I'm sure people will google stuff like "Is SQLite serverless?". There are no such thing as stupid questions, you're only stupid if you choose not to learn.
- manigandham 7y ago
  Wouldn't it be better to say "SQLite is an embedded database and not client/server". Easily understood using very well-known and absolutely clear terms. Saying "serverless" is trying to sum up that definition into a single word. It wasn't that useful back then and now has been further overloaded. Who is going to google "serverless" today and learn about SQLite's meaning of it?
  - TamDenholm 7y ago
    I mean i dont really like the term serverless at all anyway, as its meaning isnt really literal, its more literal and correct in the context of SQLite IMO. Unfortunately thats just the world we live in. It also annoys me that the word "literally" now has a secondary definition in the dictionary to mean figuratively, just gotta get used to it, despite my dislike for it. Meanings and definitions of words change over time as they get used. Another prime example would be the word "Hacker".

NhanH 7y ago

I have seen that page for around 10 years or so (except the section that was added in 2018). The term has a very clear meaning and consistent uses within the docs (and consistent with my common sense understanding of the word too). It is not SQLite's fault that AWS and co muddles the water with their usage of the term

IAmEveryone 7y ago
It's not their fault. It's not anybody's fault. Language evolves. But if you wouldn't write it this way today, you should just change it, instead of drawing your readers into a pointless fight over semantics.

kick 7y ago

The article is from 2007, and explicitly calls out that the "neo" usage of the term is different than the original. If you scroll to the fifth line or so, you'll find the update. I didn't have to scroll on my device, though i can imagine there are some smaller devices that may not have that line on the screen when opening the page.

manigandham 7y ago
Where does it say 2007? Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material. Classic serverless has always been known as "in-process". The attempt at differences seems like adding marketing fluff rather than just removing the page entirely.
- XelNika 7y ago
  It doesn't say 2007 anywhere, but the page is clearly at least that old. https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit... I also found material from 2004 with the term. https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.RichardHipp/slides/slides-all.html https://www.tcl.tk/community/tcl2004/Presentations/D.Richard... > Regardless it's vague and irrelevant material It's not vague at all, the term makes sense to distinguish "in-process" from client/server models. The page also includes an explanation on the very next line. > Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been 100x more helpful Not everyone reading about a database product is a developer. A timestamp would not help anyone unfamiliar with the history of the serverless term. The alternative is to rewrite all instances of "serverless" in the documentation which is a waste of time. Modern "serverless" is a stupid buzzword and this page clearly serves as a protest.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all? And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of creating even more niche definitions.
    - XelNika 7y ago
      > I would love to know who uses "serverless" instead of "in-process". Why add a new term at all? "In-process" is meaningless to non-IT people, they don't even know what a process is. The SQLite dev probably created the term for marketing purposes, i.e. the exact same reason cloud providers adopted it 10 years later. > And if the definition has since been muddied, then all the more reason to avoid using it instead of creating even more niche definitions. I disagree. The term in relation to SQLite is clearly defined and predates the modern version, there's really no need to go back and change it. You're also disregarding the statement made by the SQLite dev by keeping this page and updating it with a clarification.
      - 7y ago

jamessb 7y ago

It describes an important architectural feature of SQLite. Also, this page was first written in 2007 (or perhaps earlier) [1], long before 'serverless' was applied to things like Amazon Lambda. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...

manigandham 7y ago
Adding an original timestamp to the page would've been more helpful than the updated section, or just deleting the page entirely. Or just title it as "SQLite is not client/server". Nobody goes around talking about "classic serverless" instead of "in-process" which has been around for decades.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

boublepop 7y ago

> It's yet another Actually seems more like the original than yet another. And also it makes more sense “serverless” as in “there is no server” and not as in “someone else manages the server for you”.

tjoff 7y ago

> another convoluted use of the term and meaningless Just as the term serverless itself? I find this, old version, superior.

espadrine 7y ago

It is not meaningless, but perhaps unclearly expressed. There is a fundamental point the the argument: you can distribute a database without segregating it. Three methods to building a 1M+ users webapp: 1. A centralized database, eg. PostgreSQL. Typically it has a single-writer beefy machine. 2. A decentralized newSQL. Tables are automatically sharded for writes, among a set of database-only servers. Typically offered as cloud: CosmosDB, Cloud Spanner, Aurora. 3. A distributed system segregated per app. Each user has a dedicated sqlite file. The third option would be simpler to code for, since it won’t have substantial scaling issues. It is also easier for a lambda-like platform to provide: load the sqlite corresponding to the authenticated user, and the lambda code, and execute the code in sandbox. Although one negative aspect for the AWS of this world would be lack of lock-in. It is relatively easy to migrate to another cloud service, or to mix cloud services.

manigandham 7y ago
The terms "in-process" or "embedded" have been used far longer than this page has existed. "serverless" is a marketing term, then and now.

TamDenholm 7y ago

The same reason supermarkets put "gluten free" on things like butter, water and vegetables. While it may seem stupid and obvious to those informed and educated, theres a point in everyones life where they dont know anything about a subject and they need a first step. Hopefully, its a first step in a deeper understanding and education on the subject at hand. I'm sure people will google stuff like "Is SQLite serverless?". There are no such thing as stupid questions, you're only stupid if you choose not to learn.

manigandham 7y ago
Wouldn't it be better to say "SQLite is an embedded database and not client/server". Easily understood using very well-known and absolutely clear terms. Saying "serverless" is trying to sum up that definition into a single word. It wasn't that useful back then and now has been further overloaded. Who is going to google "serverless" today and learn about SQLite's meaning of it?
- TamDenholm 7y ago
  I mean i dont really like the term serverless at all anyway, as its meaning isnt really literal, its more literal and correct in the context of SQLite IMO. Unfortunately thats just the world we live in. It also annoys me that the word "literally" now has a secondary definition in the dictionary to mean figuratively, just gotta get used to it, despite my dislike for it. Meanings and definitions of words change over time as they get used. Another prime example would be the word "Hacker".