Your post:

>There are over one trillion (1000000000000 or a million million) SQLite databases in active use.

The original source[0] (which you don't link to):

>Since SQLite is used extensively in every smartphone, and there are more than 4.0 billion (4.0e9) smartphones in active use, each holding hundreds of SQLite database files, it is seems likely that there are over one trillion (1e12) SQLite databases in active use.

You're changing speculation to a fact.

[0] https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html

And by the way, pasting screenshots instead of linking to sources is very uncool.

hey, I do provide all the sources at the end!

In the initial draft, I kept links next to text and the images, but I didn't like it aesthetically. So I moved all them to the bottom.

Sources at the end without any references to them in the text is not a good way to cite things.

There’s no good reason to use images in your post, other than the one graph. Images of text are a necessity on Twitter, but this is a real web page, where you can just have plaintext. Images of text are completely useless for readers with any accessibility needs.

> The original source[0] (which you don't link to):

this is simply untrue! This is the first link in the sources.

I do highlight this part specifically in the image as well.

I didn't see that, but that's also a non-standard and unclear way to cite a source, which is why I and many others didn't see it.

Also, you didn't address my main criticism, which is that you made a claim that's stronger than what your source says.

> I hate that it doesn’t have types. It’s totally YOLO:

SQLite _does_ support strict column types since 3.37: https://www.sqlite.org/stricttables.html

I have covered in the blog already, no?

> Strong typed columns are opt-in.

I will rephrase this

I am fairly certain that Dr. Hipp has discussed changes in SQLite that were desired by Microsoft for integration into Windows, which came to pass via a foundation membership.

I believe that this was mentioned in the video below (I am not able to verify for now):

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jib2AmRb_rk

It would be interesting to see what is required for an organization to negotiate non-trivial changes in SQLite.

Didn't see this comment before complaining in a separate comment, but a destroyer is not a battleship.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer

In the OP's defense, I see this usage increasingly, as in designating any combatant ship as a "battleship" (even being used for sailing ships). It's not correct, but then neither is "alright" in place of "all right": the language changes whether we want it to or not.

Both the words "Battleship" and "War ship" are used by DRH to describe USS Oscar Austin, so I used the same.

I did not know about distinction, so TIL!

I just wanted to chime in and say I hope you keep it up; not only learning and creating the content, but also engaging.

thank you for your kind words!

A little off topic, but just wanted to say please keep blogging. I learn from your content as I’m also a beginner in databases.

I don't know if this is an inaccuracy per se, but it seems like (7) and (8) are in contradiction. One says they don't accept outside contributions and the other says, "Contributing to SQLite is invite-only".