Comment by cryptonector
1 year 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).
The 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/
"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."
I was completely unaware of that! How old is that document? I should reach out.
That effort died about 14 years ago.
2 replies →
Indeed! This sort of thing is a problem. It's the same with Internet protocols: you need at least two implementations to get to Standard.