3 ms·
I 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
by cryptonector 2y ago
I 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.