[lolinder]

I might be missing something—is there a reason why rewriting it in Rust would be a prerequisite to adding these features, vs just starting a fork?

And in this case the project intends to be fully compatible, so they wouldn't be able to unilaterally adopt or drop features anyway.

[dotancohen]

An SQLite fork will have a hard time being compelling enough to draw users away from the main project. Being written in Rust is the most compelling reason that I could think of. SQLite has many annoying quirks (foreign key constraints disabled by default and non-strongly-typed columns are my two pain points) but a fork that addresses them would still not pull me away from the original project that I have so much trust in.

[neverartful]

If I were to fork SQLite, drawing users away from the main project would be a non-goal. The goal would be to get strict tables and foreign key constraints enforced 100% of the time.

[lolinder]

Yeah, I would assume that any project like this would strive to be a soft fork that just has a few minimal patches to address specific needs, not something that actually tries to compete with the original.

[ncruces]

If that was the case, they wouldn't introduce cross incompatibilities in the changes they made (or would at least discuss compatibility in the docs), and they'd make any added features useful to others by properly documenting them.

Compatibility for libSQL is a one way street. I don't expect Limbo to be any different.

[neverartful]

Agreed! If I were to fork sqlite, that would be my aim.

[neverartful]

Agreed! Rewriting in Rust (or any other language) is not required for those features. A fork and modifying the existing C code could also result in those features (and I might do just that if it doesn't come around soon).