Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> Again, there is so much code for MySQL, a MySQL emulation layer, MEL
>>> for
>>> short, could allow plug and play compatibility for open source, and
>>> closed
>>> source, applications that otherwise would force a PostgreSQL user to
>>> hold
>>> his or her nose and use MySQL.
>>>
>> If we had infinite resources this might make sense. We don't, so it
>> doesn't. There is a real cost to producing a compatibility layer, and
>> the cost will be those spiffy new features.
>
> The real problem is that there's a whole lot of stuff, such as mysql's
> weak error checking, that I don't think a "compatibility layer" could
> sanely provide.
>
I kind of agree with this statement, but while I was playing devils's
advocate and just grousing a bit about having to use MySQL, there is a
sort of reality of "openomics" where mind-share is everything.

The more mind-share you have, the more opportunities you have and the more
resources become available. Not always, of course, look at OpenSSH, but
for the most part.

As MySQL adds features, not matter how poorly implemented, and maintain a
migration path, we will never reach their users.

PostgreSQL is better, true, but it is not ideal in many ways. It can be
best said that the difference between PostgreSQL and MySQL is similar to
the difference between Linux/BSD and Windows.