Hacker News Reader

Comment by hitekker | Hacker News Reader

This blog feels like karma farming. Recycled, old points in listicle format on a popular topic with questionable accuracy. This is on top of mixing in grievances the author's startup holds against Dr Richard Hipp, like "won't accept (our) outside contributions" and "not actually open source according to OSI".

As far as content goes, this listicle is probably great for view counts/engagement/flamewars. I'd personally prefer deeper thinking which this blog's previous posts-- high in hype and low in technical rigor-- have not yet provided.

View on HN

> Recycled, old points in listicle format on a popular topic with questionable accuracy.

Could you please state which are inaccurate? I am happy to correct them.

As for the rest of the comment, well, I don't know what to say. I am a beginner in databases and I am journaling the things I'm learning. Some of my posts might not have depth because I don't know much myself.

I just wanted to chime in and say I hope you keep it up; not only learning and creating the content, but also engaging.

thank you for your kind words!

A little off topic, but just wanted to say please keep blogging. I learn from your content as I’m also a beginner in databases.

I am fairly certain that Dr. Hipp has discussed changes in SQLite that were desired by Microsoft for integration into Windows, which came to pass via a foundation membership.

I believe that this was mentioned in the video below (I am not able to verify for now):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jib2AmRb_rk

It would be interesting to see what is required for an organization to negotiate non-trivial changes in SQLite.

Your post:

>There are over one trillion (1000000000000 or a million million) SQLite databases in active use.

The original source[0] (which you don't link to):

>Since SQLite is used extensively in every smartphone, and there are more than 4.0 billion (4.0e9) smartphones in active use, each holding hundreds of SQLite database files, it is seems likely that there are over one trillion (1e12) SQLite databases in active use.

You're changing speculation to a fact.

[0] https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html

And by the way, pasting screenshots instead of linking to sources is very uncool.

hey, I do provide all the sources at the end!

In the initial draft, I kept links next to text and the images, but I didn't like it aesthetically. So I moved all them to the bottom.

Sources at the end without any references to them in the text is not a good way to cite things.

There’s no good reason to use images in your post, other than the one graph. Images of text are a necessity on Twitter, but this is a real web page, where you can just have plaintext. Images of text are completely useless for readers with any accessibility needs.

> The original source[0] (which you don't link to):

this is simply untrue! This is the first link in the sources.

I do highlight this part specifically in the image as well.

I didn't see that, but that's also a non-standard and unclear way to cite a source, which is why I and many others didn't see it.

Also, you didn't address my main criticism, which is that you made a claim that's stronger than what your source says.

Didn't see this comment before complaining in a separate comment, but a destroyer is not a battleship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

In the OP's defense, I see this usage increasingly, as in designating any combatant ship as a "battleship" (even being used for sailing ships). It's not correct, but then neither is "alright" in place of "all right": the language changes whether we want it to or not.

Both the words "Battleship" and "War ship" are used by DRH to describe USS Oscar Austin, so I used the same.

I did not know about distinction, so TIL!

> I hate that it doesn’t have types. It’s totally YOLO:

SQLite _does_ support strict column types since 3.37: https://www.sqlite.org/stricttables.html

I have covered in the blog already, no?

> Strong typed columns are opt-in.

I will rephrase this

I don't know if this is an inaccuracy per se, but it seems like (7) and (8) are in contradiction. One says they don't accept outside contributions and the other says, "Contributing to SQLite is invite-only".

> I'd personally prefer deeper thinking which this blog's previous posts-- high in hype and low in technical rigor-- have not yet provided.

Really? Something like this[1] (literally the previous post made by the author!) is "high in hype and low in technical rigor"? Or do you just have an axe to grind?

[1]: https://avi.im/blag/2024/sqlite-past-present-future/

Agreed. I think I saw it on twitter, quick squiz of the first couple points and then closed it. Was surprised to see it on HN.

This comment feels like "old man yells at clouds". Vague, non-specific points about the accuracy of the article. This is on top of mixing in grievances with the author non-judgmentally listing and citing facts about SQLite's contribution model and license.

As far as the content goes, this comment is probably great for view counts/engagement/flamewars. I'd personally prefer deeper thinking, which this author's previous comments-- usually fun and interesting-- have provided ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com