> What is really the difference between Deno.KV being shipped as a standard library vs adding an `import KVService` statement at the top of the file? The same

> What is really the difference between Deno.KV being shipped as a standard library vs adding an `import KVService` statement at the top of the file? The same difference between `#include "myStringMap.h"` and `map[string]string` in C vs.g Go. There is some advantage to everyone in an ecosystem using the same primitives. That kind of language-level standardization goes a long way. For example, it might increase the ecosystem of available distributed system libraries that only need KV stores. If I can compose several libraries, all of which use the same underlying KV interface and implementation - I can imagine that might result in some interesting use-cases. As for the rest of your comment, I would humbly ask if you read the entirety of my comment? We seem to agree that as long as Deno KV is locked into their cloud that people should be very wary of lock in. And I myself will likely avoid it for the time being until the dust settles. There is some chance the rest of the community will just come along and fill in the gaps on popular cloud platforms. Or maybe they won't. Time will tell.