2 ms·

Most RDBMSs use static typing. That's what people expect from a database. It is SQL database, so people naturally expect familiar concepts to behave consistentl

Most RDBMSs use static typing. That's what people expect from a database. It is SQL database, so people naturally expect familiar concepts to behave consistently with their previous experience. If database fails that assumption, it's fair to call this behaviour unreasonable. It's understandable that this was early design error which is impossible to correct now, but calling it reasonable just not to hurt someones feelings is unreasonable.

em500 5y ago
Think of SQLite not as a replacement for Oracle but as a replacement for fopen().
capableweb 5y ago
Most databases also allows you to remotely connect to them, does that mean that SQLite not offering that is unreasonable? No, it means that your understanding of SQLite is incorrect, as the use case for SQLite is not to offer remote connections. Same goes for dynamically/statically typed. Your comment about this being a "design error" is also in bad taste. Have you tried looking up where this decision comes from and why it is like that? According to the SQLite folks, this is on purpose, not by accident. > As far as we can tell, the SQL language specification allows the use of manifest typing. Nevertheless, most other SQL database engines are statically typed and so some people feel that the use of manifest typing is a bug in SQLite. But the authors of SQLite feel very strongly that this is a feature. The use of manifest typing in SQLite is a deliberate design decision which has proven in practice to make SQLite more reliable and easier to use, especially when used in combination with dynamically typed programming languages such as Tcl and Python. https://www.sqlite.org/different.html https://www.sqlite.org/different.html
- vbezhenar 5y ago
  Here's quote: "In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better if SQLite had merely implemented an ANY datatype so that developers could explicitly state when they wanted to use flexible typing, rather than making flexible typing the default. But that is not something that can be changed now without breaking the millions of applications and trillions of database files that already use SQLite's flexible typing feature." For me it means that SQLite developers admit it was a mistake and should have been implemented differently. I don't understand why this mistake can't be corrected now, with some opt-in "strict types" pragma, but whatever.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  Your getting your panties in a bunch like this over some rather innocuous word choices would be understandable, albeit perhaps somewhat exaggerated, if you are one of the creators of SQLite. If you aren't, it's definitely exaggerated and not... Reasonable.

em500 5y ago

Think of SQLite not as a replacement for Oracle but as a replacement for fopen().

capableweb 5y ago

Most databases also allows you to remotely connect to them, does that mean that SQLite not offering that is unreasonable? No, it means that your understanding of SQLite is incorrect, as the use case for SQLite is not to offer remote connections. Same goes for dynamically/statically typed. Your comment about this being a "design error" is also in bad taste. Have you tried looking up where this decision comes from and why it is like that? According to the SQLite folks, this is on purpose, not by accident. > As far as we can tell, the SQL language specification allows the use of manifest typing. Nevertheless, most other SQL database engines are statically typed and so some people feel that the use of manifest typing is a bug in SQLite. But the authors of SQLite feel very strongly that this is a feature. The use of manifest typing in SQLite is a deliberate design decision which has proven in practice to make SQLite more reliable and easier to use, especially when used in combination with dynamically typed programming languages such as Tcl and Python. https://www.sqlite.org/different.html https://www.sqlite.org/different.html

vbezhenar 5y ago
Here's quote: "In retrospect, perhaps it would have been better if SQLite had merely implemented an ANY datatype so that developers could explicitly state when they wanted to use flexible typing, rather than making flexible typing the default. But that is not something that can be changed now without breaking the millions of applications and trillions of database files that already use SQLite's flexible typing feature." For me it means that SQLite developers admit it was a mistake and should have been implemented differently. I don't understand why this mistake can't be corrected now, with some opt-in "strict types" pragma, but whatever.
CRConrad 5y ago
Your getting your panties in a bunch like this over some rather innocuous word choices would be understandable, albeit perhaps somewhat exaggerated, if you are one of the creators of SQLite. If you aren't, it's definitely exaggerated and not... Reasonable.