[std.database]

[simendsjo]

On 17.10.2011 18:16, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
> simendsjo wrote:
>> On 17.10.2011 17:55, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>>> simendsjo wrote:
>>>> On 17.10.2011 17:26, Piotr Szturmaj wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You probably meant me. If we create MySQL client without using C
>>>>> bindings then we would have one of the fastest bindings at all. It may
>>>>> attract some people who write web apps to D. The same applies to
>>>>> PostgreSQL for which I wrote client without using a C binding.
>>>>
>>>> Why would a reimplementation be much faster? Is the C library
>>>> "slow"? Or
>>>> is there any overhead I'm not thinking of?
>>>
>>> There is always a function call overhead and also most of the fields are
>>> returned as strings, whereas in underlying protocol they are encoded
>>> binary, i.e. int is not sent as its decimal string representation but as
>>> 4 bytes. This saves some time taken by string to int conversion
>>> (parsing).
>>
>> I see. I've looked a bit at the C library, and it seems the protocol
>> isn't very stable. Trying to support older MySQL versions and keep up
>> with protocol changes might be (too) tedious.
>
> PostgreSQL's protocol is stable since 2003, but MySQL's is not very
> friendly indeed. Phobos might follow opportunistic path and support
> direct access with recent MySQL versions and C wrapper for older ones.

Since 2003? That's pretty impressive!
About MySql: The reason D is missing a lot of wrappers and libraries is 
the lack of manpower. This "duplicated" effort sounds like too much job 
at the current time. I think more people will flock to D once modules 
such as database and web-programming exists, and then more focus can go 
into optimizing.