← Back to context Comment by viraptor 8 days ago I know it's on the sqlite side. I'm familiar with the claim and disagree with it. 2 comments viraptor Reply scott_w 7 days ago You’re arguing in this context:> wouldn't the ability to automatically rewrite sqlite in Rust be a valuable asset?If you want to rewrite SQLite, you must accept their position. Otherwise you simply aren’t rewriting SQLite, you’re writing your own database. viraptor 5 days ago Not having bound checks does not make sqlite sqlite. If that was the case, you couldn't compile it with https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html turned on and still call it sqlite for example.
scott_w 7 days ago You’re arguing in this context:> wouldn't the ability to automatically rewrite sqlite in Rust be a valuable asset?If you want to rewrite SQLite, you must accept their position. Otherwise you simply aren’t rewriting SQLite, you’re writing your own database. viraptor 5 days ago Not having bound checks does not make sqlite sqlite. If that was the case, you couldn't compile it with https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html turned on and still call it sqlite for example.
viraptor 5 days ago Not having bound checks does not make sqlite sqlite. If that was the case, you couldn't compile it with https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html turned on and still call it sqlite for example.
You’re arguing in this context:
> wouldn't the ability to automatically rewrite sqlite in Rust be a valuable asset?
If you want to rewrite SQLite, you must accept their position. Otherwise you simply aren’t rewriting SQLite, you’re writing your own database.
Not having bound checks does not make sqlite sqlite. If that was the case, you couldn't compile it with https://clang.llvm.org/docs/BoundsSafety.html turned on and still call it sqlite for example.