Weirdly, I live in a somewhat rural part of Brazil, and all providers are small players. They’re all offering 1Gi FTTH and are now competing on price. Meanwhile, the closest metro area still suffers with cable internet topping at 600M and low availability.
Some big cities have seen a surge of small providers too, which has been great for consumers.
That said, I dont buy the “natural monopoly” argument at all, especially trying to compare it to water supply.
My wife is from Rio Grande do Norte and I'm always impressed that most of it has 1GB fiber, but roads are generally in poor repair and cell service is lacking outside of cities.
The ISPs are not always good at maintaining that raw capacity, though.
That doesn’t align with my experience. It feels more like a trojan horse. Client and Server rarely (should) share code, and people that are really good at one discipline aren’t that good at the other. Maybe LLMs will change that.
C. 2015 one of my friends was a Django dev but moved to Express/node because that's where the cool kids went, it was one less language, and allowed them to move logic FE->BE and BE->FE much easier. Also, a bunch of Rails people left to Node/FE JS and Rust (BE). JS/TS is still an irreducible requirement for FE. There is no law that either grand unified frameworks must be used nor entirely separate FE and BE must be maintained separately and are somehow mysterious, arcane arts. Not sharing code when/where it is possible and appropriate is duplicating effort.. like client- and server-side input validations doing exactly the same thing.
The company in question profits heavily from the open source nature of LibreOffice. They're a big government vendor in Europe, mainly because their codebase is perceived as open source.
Reasons 1-3 could very well be done with ClickHouse policies (RLS) and good data warehouse design. In fact, that’s more secure than a compiler adding a where to a query ran by an all mighty user.
Reason 4 is probably an improvement, but could probably be done with CH functions.
The problem with custom DSLs like this is that tradeoff a massive ecosystem for very little benefit.
As long as you don't deviate too much from ANSI, I think the 'light sql DSL' approach has a lot of pros when you control the UX. (so UIs, in particular, are fantastic for this approach - what they seem to be targeting with queryies and dashboards). It's more of a product experience; tables are a terrible product surface to manage.
Agreed with the ecosystem cons getting much heavier as you move outside the product surface area.
Personally I think that's worse. SQL - which is almost ubiqutous - already suffers from a fragmentation problem because of the complex and dated standardization setup. When I learn a new DBMS the two questions I ask at the very start are: 1. what common but non-standard features are supported? 2. what new anchor-features (often cool but also often intended to lock me to the vendor) am I going to pick up?
First I need to learn a new (even easy & familiar) language, second I need to be aware of what's proprietary & locks me to the vendor platform. I'd suspect they see the second as a benefit they get IF they can convince people to accept the first.
I actually 100% agree with your for a new DBMS and share your frustration with vendor-specific features and lock-in. At that level, it's often actively counterproductive for insurgent DBs - ecosystem tooling needs more work to interface with your shiny new DB, etc - and that's why we always see anyone who starts with a non-standard SQL converge on offering ANSI SQL eventually.
I think an application that exposes a curated dataset through a SQL-like interface - so the dashboard/analytic query case described here - is where I think this approach has value. You actually don't want to expose raw tables, INFORMATION_SCHEMA, etc - you're offering a dedicated query language on top of a higher level data product offering, and you might as well take the best of SQL and leave the bits you don't need. (You're not offering a database as a service; you're offering data as a service).
You’re right RLS can go a long way here. With complex RBAC rules it can get tricky though.
The main advantages of a DSL are you can expose a nicer interface to users (table names, columns, virtual columns, automatic joins, query optimization).
We very intentionally kept the syntax as close to regular ClickHouse as possible but added some functions.
Is this also not solvable with views? Also, clickhouse heavily discourages joins so I wonder how often this winds up being beneficial? For us, we only ever join against tenant metadata (i.e. resolving ID to name)
> query optimization
This sounds potentially interesting - clickhouse's query optimizer is not great IME, but it's definitely getting better
That’s just not true at all. Even if 100% of the population keeps 2x guns at home, at 9.5M people that would mean 19M guns. The US has more than 20x that many owned by civilians.
That’s exactly how it has been working for me in code. I have a bunch of different components and patterns that the LLMs mix and match. Has been working wonderfully over the past few months.
reply