4 ms·
The first comment is from the Cofounder and he lists the _features_ that motivated a rewrite: >Then there's the question of why we did a rewrite at all. We wan
by voiper1 3y ago
The first comment is from the Cofounder and he lists the _features_ that motivated a rewrite:
>Then there's the question of why we did a rewrite at all. We wanted to get at some important requirements:
>Unlimited cardinality
>Analytics queries against time series at the performance of a columnar DB
>Use object store as the durability layer for historical data (i.e. separate compute from storage)
>SQL and broader ecosystem compatibility
>All of that stuff taken together meant that we'd be rewriting most of the core of the database.
...
- d3w4s9 3y agoSure, the write definitely could have helped releasing these new features, but the language transition itself takes non-trivial effort and could have been used for adding additional features instead. I haven't seen any evidence that such a language transition is desperately needed. Also I said deprioritize adding features, not stop adding features, mind you. The core question here is what kind of benefit we are seeing by changing the language. If you are a fan of Rust and want to rewrite all your just because of that and you are the CTO, whatever, what can I say. But the title here is a bit clickbait-y and I really don't see much reflection on the languages themselves and how to balance the business needs for such a transition.