sqlite3 and dates

[Steven D'Aprano]

rurpy at yahoo.com wrote:

> On 02/18/2015 01:14 PM, Ben Finney wrote:
>> Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb at gmx.de> writes:
>>> On 18.02.2015 08:05, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>>
>>>> But if you need more facilities than SQLite3 can offer, maybe it's
>>>> time to move up to a full database server, instead of local files.
>>>> Switching to PostgreSQL will give you all those kinds of features,
>>>> plus a lot of other things that I would have thought pretty basic -
>>>> like ALTER TABLE. It was quite a surprise to learn that SQLite3 didn't
>>>> support that.
>>>
>>> I see you're running a lawnmower. Maybe you should switch to a combine
>>> harvester. That'll get you extra features like a reciprocating knife
>>> cutter bar. I was quite surprised that regular lawnmowers don't support
>>> those.
>> 
>> Chris has pointed out one flaw in this analogy; I'll address another.
>> 
>> A feature like 'ALTER TABLE' is not equivalent to a "reciprocating knife
>> cutter bar". I'm in agreement that it is a pretty basic SQL feature, and
>> it doesn't appear to conflict with the narrow focus that we all agree is
>> appropriate for SQLite.
> 
> No, you and Chris are way off base and Johannes is correct.
> He was pointing out that there are many applications that can
> benefit from a database and a full-blown, bells and whistles
> solution like Postgresql is often overkill in that (very common)
> case.  His analogy is quite apt and I wish I'd thought of it.


I'm not seeing that at all. Chris explicitly proceeded his comments with the
condition "if you need more facilities than SQLite3 can offer". Johannes'
analogy ignores that and consequently mocks the very idea that anyone might
need more than a regular lawmower -- even a farmer with a thousand acres of
wheat to be harvested.

Johannes' subsequent posts are more nuanced about Sqlite filling a niche and
not being suitable for everything, but the analogy you're supporting
doesn't. It's an amusing quip, quite funny, but like most quips, lacks
nuance and misrepresents Chris' original position.

Had Chris said, "SQlite? Pah, don't use that, Postgresql is a much better
solution!", the combine harvester analogy would have been much more fair.
But he didn't, so it isn't. But fair or not, it has inspired good
discussion, so there is that in it's favour.



-- 
Steven