4 ms·

> By most metrics, RoR is pretty heavyweight, as their literal taglines are "Ruby on Rails scales from HELLO WORLD to IPO" and "A web-app framework that include

> By most metrics, RoR is pretty heavyweight, as their literal taglines are "Ruby on Rails scales from HELLO WORLD to IPO" and "A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern", so it needs to be pretty big to support those use cases. Not sure what do you mean by "most metrics". Framework supporting features is not same as they being used all at once in every app. PostgreSQL has more than 1.3M lines of code and it gets used by projects of all sizes, would you call it "heavyweight" too?

imachine1980_ 4y ago
yes is heavyweight, SQLite for example isn't , but is kind the point you want database to use multiple formats, have acid compliance, json support, parallelism, easy debuggability, scalability, fault tolerance. this are problems that you pay only little cost because 1 PostgreSQL database can scale to thousands or millions of users, and is more like a video editor you doesn't code directly in it, and data replication is difficult and expensive. some people don't want have a server only for this and accept the drawbacks of not having a full database server, for example remoteok.
- quesera 4y ago
  SQLite claims at least 180K LOC (~145K+25%, covering a substantial but incomplete part of the codebase), and the above report shows Rails at 386K LOC. Suggesting that LOC does not support this argument, and perhaps is not a great metric in general, especially across different languages. https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html (as of Version 3.37.0 - 2021-11-27)
belmont_sup 4y ago
I’d call Postgres “heavyweight” compared to SQLite. Maintaining a SQLite db is as simple as a file, and then you can use litefs or litestream to back it up. Maintaining a Postgres server or cluster is hard. But it offers way more functionality. I agree that the term heavyweight can mean many things to people. I’ve take it as a generic mix of maintenance, complexity of project, ease of use for your purposes.
revscat 4y ago
> PostgreSQL has more than 1.3M lines of code and it gets used by projects of all sizes, would you call it "heavyweight" too? Yes. There’s not a definition of “lightweight” that could be applied to psql, at least without making the word useless.

imachine1980_ 4y ago

yes is heavyweight, SQLite for example isn't , but is kind the point you want database to use multiple formats, have acid compliance, json support, parallelism, easy debuggability, scalability, fault tolerance. this are problems that you pay only little cost because 1 PostgreSQL database can scale to thousands or millions of users, and is more like a video editor you doesn't code directly in it, and data replication is difficult and expensive. some people don't want have a server only for this and accept the drawbacks of not having a full database server, for example remoteok.

quesera 4y ago
SQLite claims at least 180K LOC (~145K+25%, covering a substantial but incomplete part of the codebase), and the above report shows Rails at 386K LOC. Suggesting that LOC does not support this argument, and perhaps is not a great metric in general, especially across different languages. https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html https://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html (as of Version 3.37.0 - 2021-11-27)

belmont_sup 4y ago

I’d call Postgres “heavyweight” compared to SQLite. Maintaining a SQLite db is as simple as a file, and then you can use litefs or litestream to back it up. Maintaining a Postgres server or cluster is hard. But it offers way more functionality. I agree that the term heavyweight can mean many things to people. I’ve take it as a generic mix of maintenance, complexity of project, ease of use for your purposes.

revscat 4y ago

> PostgreSQL has more than 1.3M lines of code and it gets used by projects of all sizes, would you call it "heavyweight" too? Yes. There’s not a definition of “lightweight” that could be applied to psql, at least without making the word useless.