Comment by satvikpendem
2 days ago
We had one for SQLite (which is SQL-ite btw, not SQ-Lite which doesn't make any sense) via Turso, no wonder we see the same for Postgres. Personally I do want to see libraries be in as much memory safe languages as possible.
How do you know it's not SQL-lite with the single L serving a double role?
Common pronunciations allow you to stay perfectly ambiguous about where the L goes, which aligns quite well with the name as spelled. If you do it right, nobody can tell if you're saying sequel-ite or sequel-lite or seque-lite on the one hand, or S-Q-L-ite or S-Q-L-lite or S-Q-lite on the other.
AFAIK there is no official word on how the name is intended to be read or said.
Richard Hipp says he doesn't care how anybody pronunces it. That said, he pronounces it "S-Q-L-ite".
Because the creator himself said it's an -ite suffix similar to minerals like bauxite, not -lite.
Interesting, thanks for mentioning that. I've always wondered about the origins of the name, never found anything, but now with your mention of "mineral" I was able to find this:
> (Hipp) How do I pronounce the name of the product? I say S-Q-L-ite, like a mineral.
> But I also hear a lot people say, "Sequel lite and SQL lite." You know, I don't care. Whatever comes off of your tongue easily is fine with me.
> (Q) But the official correct way is S-Q-L-ite?
> (Hipp) Yes, like a mineral.
https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-changelog/why-sqlit...
So, he means SQL-ite, but doesn't want to proscribe this as the only way people should say it. I like all of that.
Maybe we should follow his example.