3 ms·

It does provide plenty of PG specific capabilities, but PG has always had much better conformance to SQL standards and support for all the standard features tha

It does provide plenty of PG specific capabilities, but PG has always had much better conformance to SQL standards and support for all the standard features than other DBs like MySQL. It's one of the most compatible DBs from a few points of view.

insanitybit 3y ago
Yes, that's the "embrace" part. I guess my point is that "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is a really outdated saying and I hate it. Embracing and Extending are really good things.
- derefr 3y ago
  The "Extend" stage is the key: it's actually supposed to refer to attempts to introduce "better" / "more advanced", but proprietary and inherently implementation-locked technologies into an implementation (and thus into the platform the implementation implements); where these technologies don't complement, but instead supersede the use of the platform's existing open-standards capabilities, for those using this implementation. In the "Extinguish" stage, the open-standards capabilities are then deprecated in favor of these proprietary technologies — in theory just for the implementation itself, but in practice ecosystem-wide, due to the implementation's majority user share. As the locked-in nature of the component makes it impractical to offer any other implementations of it, all other implementations "fall behind" due to lacking this component, supporting fewer and fewer greenfield projects, until users give up on them, "Extinguishing" their market-share. The "Extinguish" stage only makes sense insofar as the technologies introduced in the "Extend" stage have inherent implementation lock-in. Otherwise, it's just a regular open-standards dueling-RFC-banjos scenario, not EEE. With Internet Explorer, the "Extend" phase was when Microsoft attempted to get people to write ActiveX components (that could only ever possibly work on Windows, since the ActiveX "platform API" is just "the entire Windows API") instead of writing JS. If doing this had become popular, no website that did it would have worked on any other browser than IE (and so there would have had to be "the ActiveX-enhanced IE version" and "the regular HTML version" of the site. Which was actually a thing for a short while... though only on Microsoft's own web services, AFAIK.)

insanitybit 3y ago

Yes, that's the "embrace" part. I guess my point is that "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" is a really outdated saying and I hate it. Embracing and Extending are really good things.

derefr 3y ago
The "Extend" stage is the key: it's actually supposed to refer to attempts to introduce "better" / "more advanced", but proprietary and inherently implementation-locked technologies into an implementation (and thus into the platform the implementation implements); where these technologies don't complement, but instead supersede the use of the platform's existing open-standards capabilities, for those using this implementation. In the "Extinguish" stage, the open-standards capabilities are then deprecated in favor of these proprietary technologies — in theory just for the implementation itself, but in practice ecosystem-wide, due to the implementation's majority user share. As the locked-in nature of the component makes it impractical to offer any other implementations of it, all other implementations "fall behind" due to lacking this component, supporting fewer and fewer greenfield projects, until users give up on them, "Extinguishing" their market-share. The "Extinguish" stage only makes sense insofar as the technologies introduced in the "Extend" stage have inherent implementation lock-in. Otherwise, it's just a regular open-standards dueling-RFC-banjos scenario, not EEE. With Internet Explorer, the "Extend" phase was when Microsoft attempted to get people to write ActiveX components (that could only ever possibly work on Windows, since the ActiveX "platform API" is just "the entire Windows API") instead of writing JS. If doing this had become popular, no website that did it would have worked on any other browser than IE (and so there would have had to be "the ActiveX-enhanced IE version" and "the regular HTML version" of the site. Which was actually a thing for a short while... though only on Microsoft's own web services, AFAIK.)