libsql

c0f092... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45586331

/libsql/commit/3ac3ad263c0f0... https://web.archive.org/web/20221004144141/https://glauberco... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33081159

o, and it absolutely nailed basically everything I had in mind: --- Q: Why might Adam think Limbo is an example of "EEE" so "brazen" as to resemble Microsoft in the 90s? A: Adam Rezich's comment suggests that Pekka Enberg's project, Limbo, could be seen as an example of "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" (EEE) tactics, which were notably used by Microsoft in the 1990s. Here's a breakdown of why Adam might think this: 1. Embrace: Limbo starts by embracing SQLite, a widely used, open-source database engine. By aiming for full compatibility with SQLite, Limbo acknowledges and adopts the existing technology, similar to how Microsoft would integrate or support existing standards or technologies in their products. 2. Extend: Limbo extends SQLite by rewriting it in Rust, adding new features like built-in vector search and asynchronous I/O, which are not part of the original SQLite. This extension phase is where Microsoft historically added proprietary features or extensions to standards, making their versions more appealing or functional in certain ways. 3. Extinguish: Although Limbo hasn't reached this phase yet, the potential for extinguishing could arise if Limbo becomes superior enough to make SQLite less relevant or if it leads to a market shift where SQLite users migrate to Limbo due to its enhanced capabilities. Microsoft in the 90s would often extend standards in such a way that their versions became the de facto standard, overshadowing or making competitors' versions obsolete. The "brazen" aspect comes from the transparency and public nature of the project. Unlike Microsoft's more secretive and strategic approach in the past, Limbo's development is open, with Enberg sharing his plans and progress publicly. This openness, combined with the ambitious goal of completely rewriting a foundational piece of software like SQLite, might seem bold or even audacious, reminiscent of Microsoft's aggressive market strategies but done in a more transparent and community-driven manner. --- The only thing Grok didn't mention was the overt emphasis on the “community” aspect of this project, which is being promoted as being strictly, even obviously better than sqlite3's way of doing things. For me personally, sqlite3 not being a “community”-focused project is actually a huge advantage—modern programming “communities”, while being good for building hype and allegiance for one's project, generally result in very unpleasant nth-order social effects which have nothing to do with the quality of software. [0] https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/blob/main/CODE_OF_CO... [1] https://x.com/glcst/status/1887148191344148681 [2] https://x.com/i/grok/share/6PMLqGr2JETaSGF8hhVxs0WJk

pped our toes into with our server-side code. With DST, we believe we can achieve an even higher degree of robustness than SQLite, since it is easier to simulate unlikely scenarios in a simulator, test years of execution with different event orderings, and upon finding issues, reproduce them 100% reliably. Did you make your false claim in ignorance of their announcement post (https://turso.tech/blog/introducing-limbo-a-complete-rewrite...), or did you make it knowing full well that they're trying hard to make a well tested library? --- But fuck it, I got time. I'll tackle the other dubious claims you've made as well. > Also, we replaced that pesky, unsavory-to-our-sensibilities “Code of Ethics” They haven't replaced it because Limbo is a new project. LibSQL is a fork of an existing project but again, they haven't replaced the "Code of Ethics" in the repo (https://sqlite.org/src/dir?ci=trunk) because it never existed in the repo, just on the sqlite.org website. So they "replaced" nothing. They simply added their own code of conduct, which (I agree with you) is bog standard for a project on Github. --- > Announcing before it's ready Yes? That's normal? You're objecting to a project even existing on Github if it's not 100% done? They specifically explain why they've done it. They're building in the open, they're seeing excitement from outside contributors who want to contribute. So they're announcing to make more potential contributors aware this project exists. Only someone with a warped mind could find something objectionable about starting small and iterating with the community. --- > Also we're going to extend SQLite to be “cloud-capable” because that's our business use-case, even though it's completely at odds with SQLite's intended use-case Nothing you've said makes me think you understand the social side of building software, but this makes me think you don't understand the technical side either. Perhaps you missed the link on this thread where they explain why SQLite works well in the cloud. I'll explain for you though, in case you're unable to find the link at the top of this page. SQLite relies on random access from disk, which made it a poor fit for cloud workloads when the cloud used HDDs exclusively. HDDs work much better for sequential access, which is why LSM trees were invented. So rather than reading from a random part of the local disk (10-20ms) you'd rather pay the network cost (0.5-2ms) and read from a database on a different machine that has optimised it's data storage for sequential read. But SSDs change the game. A random read of 4k from a local SSD is 150 microseconds (https://gist.github.com/jboner/2841832), always less than the network round trip. Local SQLite running on an SSD is suddenly the lowest latency database. For infrequently changing data that needs to be served with low latency, SQLite is the best choice in the cloud. If you don't follow this, it's alright. I didn't expect you to. --- > SQLite is public domain so there's no problem with us rewriting it and We're going to MIT license our rewrite because there's various reasons why people would rather use MIT-licensed code than public domain code Yes, this is true. I don't think this was an objection from you. --- > We're going to rewrite it in Rust because that's going to make it inherently better (and don't question this) What should they be writing it in? I notice you don't say. You reckon they should start a new C code base in 2024? --- > Redot comparison Redot is a fork created solely because the creators didn't like a tweet about Godot being welcoming to LGBT game developers. LibSQL was created because they wanted to add features to the SQLite codebase and weren't allowed. In any case the comparison is wrong. You can see the two commit histories of redot (https://github.com/Redot-Engine/redot-engine/commits/master/... libsql (https://github.com/tursodatabase/libsql/commits/main/) and see which of these is actually a community creating something new and which is a dead project simply merging in commits from upstream. --- No one disagrees that SQLite is highly useful, rock-solid reliable software. But I disagree with you that it is perfect in every way and no one should ever second guess any decision made by the maintainers. Turso wants to try something different. Nothing wrong with trying.