On Jun 26, 2019, at 2:58 PM, ingo <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 26-6-2019 22:22, Warren Young wrote: >> 3. Lack of types. > > Not being a programmer, that was a revelation to me
Behind my prior two posts isn’t an attitude of criticism of SQLite’s design and implementation, but rather an itch created by the gaps in its capabilities relative to popular big-boy RDBMSes. Because SQLite isn’t the only SQL DBMS, there’s a lot of info on the web and in books about those other DBMSes, so there’s a lot of info that doesn’t properly apply to SQLite. SQLite can fill those gaps in any of several ways: 1. Add features. Problem: risks damage to its “lite” nature. 2. Let other authors paper over of those gaps. Problem: they don’t always show up as high as sqlite.org in web search results, even when you include “SQLite” as a search term. 3. Add such docs in the official SQLite docs, so that for each topic where SQLite diverges from the rest of the SQL world, the correct answer is among the first few web search results. sqlite.org has a lot of Google juice, which gives it a greater responsibility for being comprehensive than a lesser-ranked site. To the extent that the SQLite docs fail to take up that responsibility, its Google juice will drain away as people link to arguably better sources. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
