Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahart | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If the real reason is they don’t want it, who cares what the other reasons are?

In your critique of their argument, I don’t see a single reason why they should use MySQL. So why should they continue to use MySQL? Why should they solve nested groups and long text columns? What does that buy them?

> All they had to do was implement a nested set pattern for their groups [1]

I admit I have a sensitivity to knee-jerk “can’t you just” comments, but reading the first paragraph of your link, this doesn’t sound like an automatic win. Is it possible that they tried this and found out that it actually couldn’t be supported in a performant way? (Edit: turns out they did exactly that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344575) Either way, it sounds tricky... so back to the real question... why bother?

“Updating requires renumbering and is therefore expensive. Refinements that use rational numbers instead of integers can avoid renumbering, and so are faster to update, although much more complicated.”

IMO the point is that they’re creating misinformation with incorrect statements about MySQL. It’s not clear why they had to publish a blog post in the first place, to excuse themselves or to prove a point? Put that info in a FAQ and be ready to address incorrect info. I understand that MySQL doesn’t fit their use case and I wouldn’t try to smartass them out, but it’s wrong of them publishing incorrect data. If they thought this would help them and their conversation with existing and potential customers, it’s actually damaging their reputation, because it feels like their engineers don’t know what they’re doing.

> the point is that they’re creating misinformation with incorrect statements about MySQL

Which statements are incorrect? Someone from the team responded directly to all points above here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344575 If you want to debate the reasons why, maybe respond to that thread? I don't, but I assume they're competent and telling the truth. The claims here about the reasons being wrong and the team not being competent appear to be incorrect and emotionally based. I can understand people being upset about losing support for something they use, but the assumptions and accusations seem misplaced, and fwiw, two years late.

> It’s not clear why they had to publish a blog post in the first place

Why shouldn't they? What's the functional difference between a blog post and a FAQ anyway? I don't understand your complaint - are you asking why they published anything or asking why it's not on a different web page? Your critique, like the one above it, is still not making any case for why they should continue to support MySQL.

I would assume that having announced this move two years ago, they've had a few customers ask why. I would assume that a company that cares about it's users but needs to drop support for something some of them still use, they would take some time to elaborate on their reasons, precisely because they care.

> If the real reason is they don’t want it, who cares what the other reasons are?

Is this comment directed at the parent comment or the blog post itself? :)

The parent comment. I'm referring to "I think this is the real reason." but I could have quoted that to make it more clear. And to be clear, they have more reasons, I'm asking why they need more reasons.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com