4 ms·
When the initial SQLite3->LibSQL fork was announced I was pretty negative about it because SQLite3 has a wonderful, 100% branch coverage test suite that is prop
by cryptonector 2y ago
When the initial SQLite3->LibSQL fork was announced I was pretty negative about it because SQLite3 has a wonderful, 100% branch coverage test suite that is proprietary, and so without access to that any fork would be bound to fail.
However, if there's a big product behind the fork, and even better, a rewrite to a memory-safe language, then the fork begins to make a lot of sense. So, hats off to y'all for pulling this off!
- cogman10 2y agoGood luck for sure, but browsing their compatibility matrix, it looks like they are a LONG way off. By the looks of it, they have mostly read compatibility with little write capabilities (no alter table, for example).
- cryptonector 2y agoAs long as they have the funding I'm sure they can get there.
- jey 2y agoThat's fully in line with what they're announcing here. It's the announcement of a new project that has passed the prototyping stage, but one that has not reached the 1.0 stage.
- glommer 2y agocorrect, this is just the project being moved from fun personal side project from the company's CTO to an experimental stage as a company project. There isn't a long term roadmap, or anything like that. I got pretty excited when I saw the results, though. It's less about the number of github stars - who the hell cares about those - but the contributors. Limbo already has a very nice list of contributors, which led me to believe there is something here!
- _ugfj 2y agoAnd it never will The first 90% is easy, it's the second 90% that is very hard.
- sroussey 2y agoSomeone has done a rewrite before…
- glommer 2y agodunno, we rewrote a database before, much larger and harder than sqlite, and it was pretty successful. In my experience the 10% that doesn't get done is the 10% that people don't care too much about it anyway.
- cryptonector 2y agoWhich one?