[forgotpwd16]

Ah, it was about the usage of rewrite by such third-party efforts. In this case, yes, the original reimplementation (could have also call it alternative) wording is probably better. Was confused at the "happens to have some compatibility" part because the project was started with that intent so it wasn't a coincidence.

[egorfine]

It's not a reimplementation either. It's just a separate project which has nothing to do with SQLite. Thus mentioning it as "SQLite resomething" is not fair.

SQLite compatibility at file level is a nice perk which I am not totally convinced is truly needed at all. Like, it's hard to imagine scenarios where this is useful. But it can be.

Anyway, godspeed. Just don't steal valor.

[lazylester]

"...hard to imagine scenarios where [file-level compatibility] is useful" what am I missing? Surely dropping a more performant dbm into an existing project would be the application? No?

[egorfine]

Could you imagine a project that is simultaneously:

1. having such a huge local SQLite file that migration to another format is unfeasible;

2. bottlenecking on a single specific metric that happens to be more performant in Turso;

3. ready to introduce another programming language and its build toolchain into the project;