5 ms·

Sqlite3 is universal, but now your spec is entirely reliant on Sqlite3's format and all the quirks required to support that. If you actually care about the fut

Sqlite3 is universal, but now your spec is entirely reliant on Sqlite3's format and all the quirks required to support that. If you actually care about the future, spec out your own database format and use that instead. It could even be mostly a copy of Sqlite3, but at least it would be part of the spec itself.

kevmo314 3y ago
On the other hand, by using Sqlite one can reimplement this format in another language with very little effort.
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  It requires the sqlite3 library bindings, which might be a lot of effort.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
    Is there a mainstream language which does not have SQLite bindings?
    - 0x457 3y ago
      Probably Go because of CGO.
      - klabb3 3y ago
        Go has both. The CGO-bindings are preferable, generally. It’s very mature, fast and works great. https://github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 https://github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3
- remram 3y ago
  That's not the usual meaning of "reimplement".
lordmauve 3y ago
> Most popular solutions like Zip, gzip, tar, RAR, or 7-Zip are near or more than three decades old. If I can't extract .pack archives 3 decades from now, the use of SQLite 3 will be the reason.
- rpdillon 3y ago
  What makes you think that? It's a very widely-used and stable format, cited as a great format for archival use. The Library of Congress has a page that goes into some depth with respect to their sustainability analysis for the format. https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000461.shtml https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd0004...
hgs3 3y ago
You're not "wrong" but Sqlite isn't your run-of-the-mill project. "The SQLite file format is stable, cross-platform, and backwards compatible and the developers pledge to keep it that way through the year 2050." [1] [1] https://www.sqlite.org/ https://www.sqlite.org/
- orf 3y ago
  How different is this to any other run of the mill project with few active developers on a single implementation, with backwards compatibility based entirely on promises? Hot take: SQLite has bugs and quirks.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  How many sqlite implementations are there? Do you need to generate sqlite bindings for every language/runtime? E g. Cloudflare workers
  - wakawaka28 3y ago
    I suppose you do need bindings for every language. But sqlite is in C and is extremely popular. If you can't get bindings as one of the first third party libraries your language supports, it's probably a shitty language anyway.
    - paulddraper 3y ago
      Brilliant
  - OttoCoddo 3y ago
    A couple, but simple. No, you will only need Pack, everything is built into it. Pack is built for Windows and Linux, and more will come. You will be able to run it on almost all CPUs.
sitkack 3y ago
sqlite should be an implementation detail. The table format should be fully documented and use a sqlite virtual table module.
OttoCoddo 3y ago
Good point, thank you. Note that SQLite format is very simple https://www.sqlite.org/fileformat.html https://www.sqlite.org/fileformat.html

kevmo314 3y ago

On the other hand, by using Sqlite one can reimplement this format in another language with very little effort.

KerrAvon 3y ago
It requires the sqlite3 library bindings, which might be a lot of effort.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y ago
  Is there a mainstream language which does not have SQLite bindings?
  - 0x457 3y ago
    Probably Go because of CGO.
    - klabb3 3y ago
      Go has both. The CGO-bindings are preferable, generally. It’s very mature, fast and works great. https://github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3 https://github.com/mattn/go-sqlite3
remram 3y ago
That's not the usual meaning of "reimplement".

lordmauve 3y ago

> Most popular solutions like Zip, gzip, tar, RAR, or 7-Zip are near or more than three decades old. If I can't extract .pack archives 3 decades from now, the use of SQLite 3 will be the reason.

rpdillon 3y ago
What makes you think that? It's a very widely-used and stable format, cited as a great format for archival use. The Library of Congress has a page that goes into some depth with respect to their sustainability analysis for the format. https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000461.shtml https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd0004...

hgs3 3y ago

You're not "wrong" but Sqlite isn't your run-of-the-mill project. "The SQLite file format is stable, cross-platform, and backwards compatible and the developers pledge to keep it that way through the year 2050." [1] [1] https://www.sqlite.org/ https://www.sqlite.org/

orf 3y ago
How different is this to any other run of the mill project with few active developers on a single implementation, with backwards compatibility based entirely on promises? Hot take: SQLite has bugs and quirks.
paulddraper 3y ago
How many sqlite implementations are there? Do you need to generate sqlite bindings for every language/runtime? E g. Cloudflare workers
- wakawaka28 3y ago
  I suppose you do need bindings for every language. But sqlite is in C and is extremely popular. If you can't get bindings as one of the first third party libraries your language supports, it's probably a shitty language anyway.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Brilliant
- OttoCoddo 3y ago
  A couple, but simple. No, you will only need Pack, everything is built into it. Pack is built for Windows and Linux, and more will come. You will be able to run it on almost all CPUs.

sitkack 3y ago

sqlite should be an implementation detail. The table format should be fully documented and use a sqlite virtual table module.

OttoCoddo 3y ago

Good point, thank you. Note that SQLite format is very simple https://www.sqlite.org/fileformat.html https://www.sqlite.org/fileformat.html