> > Microsoft Word is not a word processor -- it's a file format.
> No, don't be obtuse. I'm saying that .docx is a file format.
I'm afraid I'm not the one being obtuse. That statement is a mirror; please have a look.
> Precision of thought.
Which is why "SQLite is only a file format" is a false statement, and you shouldn't be making it.
> But you don't need the SQLite library to work on SQLite files. You don't need even need SQL.
That's like saying btrfs isn't a filesystem, because grub knows how to read it. The core functionality of SQLite is the query system. The fact that it's got a well-defined file specification which other projects can read is one of its features, not the sum of everything that SQLite is.
> I literally sat in a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite and didn't want to add maintenance of yet another database to their overworked DBA staff and didn't want to hire a dedicated person to manage it. So now, instead of just taking delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system, which in turn actually will add workload to the overworked DBA staff and will also perform worse.
Finally, something remotely concrete, rather than a repetition of the same false statement.
So the problem you're trying to solve is that people see "SQL" and think "Oracle": A massive installation which requires separate resources, both in terms of servers and manpower to maintain it.
I can see why you want to try to correct that false belief. But your solution seems to be to introduce another false belief. Imagine you're successful in getting people to accept that "SQLite is just a file format". Five years from now, someone else will be posting this to HN:
"I literally sat it a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite, and he said SQLite is just a file format like JSON; and they need advanced SQL querying, safe transactions, and safe access by multiple accounts. So now, instead of taking the delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system."
You're not going to fix one misconception by introducing another. One better thing to say would be the truth:
"SQLite allows us to embeds database functionality into your application, so there's no need for a separate stand-alone database."
Or, in fact, to do what this article does, and try to hijack current hype around "serverless":
"SQLite is a serverless database -- you don't need to install and maintain a new RDBMS; it's embedded inside the application itself. No additional maintenance necessary."
> No, don't be obtuse. I'm saying that .docx is a file format.
I'm afraid I'm not the one being obtuse. That statement is a mirror; please have a look.
> Precision of thought.
Which is why "SQLite is only a file format" is a false statement, and you shouldn't be making it.
> But you don't need the SQLite library to work on SQLite files. You don't need even need SQL.
That's like saying btrfs isn't a filesystem, because grub knows how to read it. The core functionality of SQLite is the query system. The fact that it's got a well-defined file specification which other projects can read is one of its features, not the sum of everything that SQLite is.
> I literally sat in a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite and didn't want to add maintenance of yet another database to their overworked DBA staff and didn't want to hire a dedicated person to manage it. So now, instead of just taking delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system, which in turn actually will add workload to the overworked DBA staff and will also perform worse.
Finally, something remotely concrete, rather than a repetition of the same false statement.
So the problem you're trying to solve is that people see "SQL" and think "Oracle": A massive installation which requires separate resources, both in terms of servers and manpower to maintain it.
I can see why you want to try to correct that false belief. But your solution seems to be to introduce another false belief. Imagine you're successful in getting people to accept that "SQLite is just a file format". Five years from now, someone else will be posting this to HN:
"I literally sat it a meeting last week where a senior decision-maker at a client wouldn't accept delivery of some software because it used SQLite, and he said SQLite is just a file format like JSON; and they need advanced SQL querying, safe transactions, and safe access by multiple accounts. So now, instead of taking the delivery of the software, some of it has to be rewritten to use the client's RDBMS system."
You're not going to fix one misconception by introducing another. One better thing to say would be the truth:
"SQLite allows us to embeds database functionality into your application, so there's no need for a separate stand-alone database."
Or, in fact, to do what this article does, and try to hijack current hype around "serverless":
"SQLite is a serverless database -- you don't need to install and maintain a new RDBMS; it's embedded inside the application itself. No additional maintenance necessary."