←back to thread

/dev/null is an ACID compliant database

(jyu.dev)
526 points swills | 8 comments | 23 Oct 25 21:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.947s | source | bottom
Show context
charcircuit ◴[23 Oct 25 23:20 UTC] No.45688714[source]▶
/dev/null is not a database. By this logic is a hard disk a database, is a CD a database. No. They are storage mediums. You could store a database on them, but they themselves are not a database.

Considering there is no way to read back data written to /dev/null it will not be useful for storing database data.

replies(5): >>45688749 #>>45689087 #>>45689165 #>>45691172 #>>45691960 #
chrisweekly ◴[24 Oct 25 00:00 UTC] No.45689087[source]▶
seems you've missed the joke
replies(1): >>45689148 #
1. charcircuit ◴[24 Oct 25 00:08 UTC] No.45689148[source]▶
It's not a funny one if it was one. Of course something is going to be a bad database if it's not a database.
replies(4): >>45689483 #>>45689572 #>>45689796 #>>45691982 #
2. voidfunc ◴[24 Oct 25 00:56 UTC] No.45689483[source]▶
"Its not funny" says the one guy in a room where literally everyone else is laughing and riffing on the joke.

Your humor unit might be defective.

replies(1): >>45689677 #
3. brobbin ◴[24 Oct 25 01:11 UTC] No.45689572[source]▶
It's nerd humor. You're not supposed to find it funny, but nod along approvingly while noticing how awfully clever you are for noticing the attempt at being funny.
replies(1): >>45693286 #
4. jfengel ◴[24 Oct 25 01:41 UTC] No.45689796[source]▶
It's not a great joke, to be sure. But the essence of it is that it's a good database, by relevant but inappropriate standards.
replies(1): >>45691503 #
5. tgv ◴[24 Oct 25 06:29 UTC] No.45691503[source]▶
Insufficient/incomplete rather than inappropriate, perhaps?
replies(1): >>45694577 #
6. ◴[24 Oct 25 07:45 UTC] No.45691982[source]▶
7. dmytrish ◴[24 Oct 25 10:54 UTC] No.45693286[source]▶
Considering that D in "ACID" stands for "durable", it's a pretty sloppy joke.
8. jfengel ◴[24 Oct 25 13:45 UTC] No.45694577{3}[source]▶
The problem with the joke, as I see it, is that it only works with a colloquial definition of ACID. If it worked with a formal definition, it would be funnier by having a twinge of insight.

It's as if the joke requires two steps away from reality: first to apply the definition to a domain where it doesn't apply, then mis-reading the definition to make it fit. Having to go two steps like that spoils the feeling of insight that makes a joke like this work.

The article doesn't belabor the gag, which is a point in its favor. It has to hit you with its punch line and then quit before it wears out its welcome.