Is it just me, or is Sqlite3 goofy?

[mensanator at aol.com]

Mike Owens wrote:
> On 11 Sep 2006 21:35:28 -0700, mensanator at aol.com <mensanator at aol.com> wrote:
> > 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?
>
> Did you even read my original post? Or did you just completely miss the point?
>
> > 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.
>
> And apparently not very good at providing any constructive solutions.
>
> > But no one appreciates my finding those faults.
>
> No one appreciates the tone in which you report these alleged faults,
> necessarily agrees with the faults that you find, nor elected you
> system test engineer of the SQLite project.
>
> > > 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?
>
> And how many conform to the standard?
>
> > Name one where the documentation claims the SQL Language
> > Specification is a bug.
>
> Name one that conforms to the standard.
>
> > 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.
>
> To use your specious analogy, it represents another way of doing
> things, which you admit yourself works. That's your justification for
> calling Richard Hipp a crackpot?

What was Richard Hipp's justification for slandering the
writers of the SQL Language Specification?

>
> > > 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"?
>
> The point being? -- you can write Python code and feel entitled to
> condescending and rude?

Is there anything more rude than describling the SQL Language
Specification as a bug that needs to be fixed?