On Oct 9, 2011, at 3:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 10/9/11 5:31 PM, Walter Bright wrote: >> On 10/9/2011 5:28 AM, Piotr Szturmaj wrote: >>> 1. I think that we should not design this API using the least common >>> denominator >>> approach. This is to not limit some databases. For example PostgreSQL >>> has many >>> great features not available in MySQL. That's why I started with >>> postgres in my >>> ddb project. I think DB API should be designed to support the most >>> featureful >>> databases and those that have less features may be easily adapted to >>> that API. >> >> >> Haven't common denominator designs been more or less failures in at >> least one category - gui libraries? > > A common database interface is not a common denominator API; more like the > opposite. This is not difficult because most differences across database > systems lie in their SQL, which is strings from D's perspective.
Assuming that by "database" you mean SQL. Pretty fair assumption, though NoSQL databases (which cover a broad range of designs since there's no standard language yet for key-value DBs, etc) are rapidly gaining popularity. I almost wonder if the base type should be named SqlDatabase instead of Database.
