3 ms·
Dunno. Good luck to them, but I never saw a need to rewrite sqlite.
by toenail 2y ago
Dunno. Good luck to them, but I never saw a need to rewrite sqlite.
- kabirgoel 2y agoGuessing the shortcomings become starker if you’re spending lots of time in the codebase/building a company on top of it.
- cryptonector 2y agoI do see a need for multiple implementations of SQLite3. First there's the need for multiple implementations for the reasons given by the LibSQL folks, second there's the need for a memory-safe language implementation of SQLite3, and third there's the need for a native language implementation for languages whose runtimes really want not to have C involved (e.g., Go).
- xyc 2y agoThe fact that there's no alternative implementation of SQLite also seems to play a part in preventing standardization of WebSQL. https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ https://www.w3.org/TR/webdatabase/ "The specification reached an impasse: all interested implementors have used the same SQL backend (Sqlite), but we need multiple independent implementations to proceed along a standardisation path."
- cryptonector 2y agoIndeed! This sort of thing is a problem. It's the same with Internet protocols: you need at least two implementations to get to Standard.
- glommer 2y agoI was completely unaware of that! How old is that document? I should reach out.
- bborud 2y agoMost of us don't see the need to do something until after it is done.