[ricardobeat]

> They'll tell their boss it's impossibly dangerous to make any changes, and they'll replace it with a database.

This, 100%. Development today is driven by appearances though, you can take advantage of that. Give it a cute name, make sure you have AI generate an emoji-rich README for it, publish it as an open source npm package, then trigger CI a few thousand times to get a pretty download count. They will happily continue using it without fear!

[pythonaut_16]

Heuristically they'd be right to say that though.

If you start a new job and on your first day they go "Yeah the last guy said we don't need a database, so he rolled his own." are you gonna be excited, or sweating?

Exception being perhaps "The last team chose to build their own data layer, and here's the decision log and architecture docs proving why it was needed."

[hunterpayne]

Serious question, why are people here acting as if formatted files are somehow more reliable than a DB? That just simply isn't true. For most of software development's history, using flat files for persistence of data was the wrong thing to do with good reason. Flat files can easily be corrupted, and that happens much more often than a DB gets corrupted. The reason you might think otherwise is just sampling bias.

[btilly]

I do believe that you are missing a healthy dose of sarcasm. Such as faking downloads to give yourself inflated statistics so that your employer will trust untested and AI-written garbage.

That said, there really are good use cases for readable formatted files. For example configuration files that are checked into source control are far more trackable than a SQLite database for the same purpose. For another example, the files are convenient for a lot of data transfer purposes.

But for updateable data? You need a really good reason not to simply use a database. I've encountered such edge cases. But I've encountered a lot more people who thought that they had an edge case, than really did.