Is it just me, or is Sqlite3 goofy?

[mensanator at aol.com]

Mike Owens wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 18:23:50 -0700, mensanator at aol.com <mensanator at aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Can you run your car on diesel fuel?
> >
> > Why not?
> >
> > Because your car's specification says to use gasoline?
> >
> > If your car has been designed to run on diesel, you shouldn't
> > be saying it has gasoline engine. Duh.
>
> No but you can still call it a car with an engine, just as SQLite is a
> SQL database, with an SQL engine.

Seperate the data from the engine and what have you got?
Data with dynamic typing. Data that can't be migrated to
a "real" SQL database because you'll get type mismatches
when strings are inserted into numeric fields. The type affinity
kluge won't help there, will it?

>
> > > Furthermore, I'm not responding to Python's representation of one
> > > thing or another. I am responding to some of the ridiculous and unfair
> > > criticisms directed at SQLite. Whatever Python did or didn't do, or
> > > whatever PySQLite does or doesn't do, SQLite doesn't deserve to be
> > > drug through the mud.
> >
> > Sure it does.
>
> No it doesn't. If you don't like SQLite's design decisions, write your
> own embedded relational database, and stop yapping about something you
> didn't lift a finger to create,

It's not the job of the System Test Engineer to design things.
It's his job to find fault with everything. I just happen to be very
good at finding faults with things.

But no one appreciates my finding those faults.

The Emperor is naked and I'm the only one who can see it.

> but are clearly trying to benefit
> from.
>
> > >From SQLite Homepage
> >   documentation
> >     Available Documentation
> >       Distinctive Features
> >
> > In manifest typing, the datatype is a property of the
> > value itself, not of the column in which the value is
> > stored. SQLite thus allows the user to store any value
> > of any datatype into any column regardless of the declared
> > type of that column. (There are some exceptions to this
> > rule: An INTEGER PRIMARY KEY column may only store
> > integers. And SQLite attempts to coerce values into the
> > declared datatype of the column when it can.)
> >
> > ***********************************************************
> > * The SQL language specification calls for static typing. *
> > ***********************************************************
>
> It calls for other things that many databases don't implement or
> altogether violate as well, so what? Show me how both MS SQL's T-SQL
> and Oracle's PL/SQL procedure languages are so standards compliant
> that you can use the same procedure code in both databases. You can't
> -- precisely because they ignore or outright violate parts of the
> standard as well. What's your position on that? Do some Googling and
> you can easily find 18 ways that Oracle's PL/SQL deviates from the
> standard. And T-SQL is plainly nowhere close.

And how many of those systems use dynamic typing?

>
> > A spcification cannot be a bug (unless it is inconsistent
> > with other specifications). An implementation can be,
> > but a specification cannot.
>
> Then every database implementation, when held up to the SQL standard,
> is equally guilty of being buggy and/or incomplete. Name one database
> that fully conforms to SQL 2003. Can't name one? Then why single out
> SQLite?

Name one where the documentation claims the SQL Language
Specification is a bug.

>
> > > Then what does calling it crappy and goofy suggest?
> >
> > It suggests that the SQLite author is a crackpot.
>
> Crackpot? And now we get to why I took the flamebait -- wonderfully
> constructive comments such as this.
>
> I know SQLite's author. Besides being a nice and clearly very
> intelligent person, he also holds a master's degree in electrical
> engineering from Georgia Tech and a PhD in computer science from Duke
> University. His "crackpot" software is used by Sun, Apple, Symbian,
> Google, AOL, Philips, DLink, and I don't know how many other
> companies, not to mention countless open source projects such as
> Mozilla, PHP, and now Python. But I guess they must all be crackpots
> too.

And a lot of people go to chiropractors. And chiropractors are
nice intelligent people with degrees. And the therapy provided
does good.

Nevertheless, the theory on which it's based is quackery.

>
> It's clear. You're just way too smart for SQLite.

Did you see my solution to Rick Shepard's problem in the
thread "Parsing String, Dictionary Lookups, Writing to 
Database Table"?