SQLwaterheadretard3 (Was: Is it just me, or is Sqlite3 goofy?)

[sjdevnull at yahoo.com]

Mike Owens wrote:
> And if you say SQLite misrepresents itself,
> then what do you say about MySQL, which until version 5 didn't have
> views or triggers? In fact, it didn't even have subselects until
> version 4. For a period of years, SQLite had more mainstream SQL
> features than MySQL. Yet you don't see people going around claiming
> that MySQL is not an SQL database -- that it's misrepresenting itself.

Just to be fair...

You do hear many people claiming exactly that, and the primary
complaint is often exactly the same one that's being levelled against
sqlite here (it's incredibly lax with types and does sometimes
mystifying conversions rather than pointing out programmer errors--and
yes that's intentionally loaded language that I don't necessarily agree
with, it's a common argument though.).  The lack of subselects was also
a major sticking point for a lot of people, as are other major missing
SQL features.

Not having used sqlite I can't comment on it in particular.