I would have preferred you said something like "hey nice try, but the overhead of compiling a c file every time you query will quickly make the database unusable" or "this design limits the database to very small data sets" or anything, really, that could help me understand what is so bad about the design. It was an experiment, it seemed to work well, so I posted it here for feedback. I wouldn't mind if someone told be it was terrible as long they did it respectfully and gave me some clue as to why they thought so.
Let me try to show you my point of view. I see a link on Hacker News about a new database. Now I think there is someone who is serious about developing a database and is confident enough about his work to present it to the public and to this forum in particular. I naturally expect that author has a good understanding of database systems because I think he will have researched the topic before he started building something new. And there is really a lot of literature on databases.
The dominant standard, the relational model now often more or less synonymous with SQL, is 45 years old, the first »modern« database systems are more than 50 years old like IDS [1] released in 1964. But even those are usually referred to as 3rd generation systems with a decade or so of development on their back. And if you want to you could go even further back, at least as far as 1884, 130 years, and the Hollerith machines which are at the roots of IBM.
And with this expectation I looked at your project and found something that is probably the most convoluted ways to implement an database that I have seen. Really, don't take it personal, but there is not much that resembles a usual database system design and there is nothing where I honestly could have said that it is a nice idea but it could be improved by doing this or that. I could have suggested to read the Wikipedia article on databases [2] and work from there, but would this really have sounded less rude?
