I’ll add to the positivity: this is the first time I’ve ever found a “we can do better than SQL” compelling. It’s easy to understand what it’s doing with a variety of known quantities. It solves a difficult problem elegantly. It has 100% overlap with the goals I want it to have. It’s designed to be usable with minimal fuss. It does really a good job of portraying itself as magic (it will be awesome to use) without portraying itself as magic (it explains itself in terms of already knowable tools and how it leverages their strength).

I do have a couple minor quibbles:

- Serializable transactions are expensive, and that deserves to be an explicit caveat. Not everyone knows this, and it’s an important thing to put up front.

- Some of the language in this post are in CAP theorem territory but neglect to directly address that. I’d like to see how client usage compares with direct Postgres usage (idiomatic for each insofar as such a beast exists) in a Call Me Maybe. I know that’s a lot to ask in a 1.0 announcement four years in the making, but I hope it’s a priority to get this in front of Aphyr.

Edit: oh and I definitely look forward to this being further distinguished from an ORM, because even though I can see the blue and black dress my mind keeps switching it back to gold and white.