I'm tickled you asked ChatGPT but I think it misses the the forest for the trees somewhat.

1. Architecture - XTDB is designed to work with Kafka, but it also works with typical JDBC databases as a datastore. Datomic can use SQL databases, DynamoDB or Cassandra if you want distribution. I personally would think long and hard before I introduced a distributed database to my organisation "because it scales".

Part of the value proposition of Datomic is it easily scales read workloads horizontally and by isolating read and writes into separate processes it improves write performance significantly. The metric usually thrown around is 75% of CPU cycles in a traditional RDBMS are concurrency coordination, which is avoided by the Datomic model. That number is quite old now so I don't know if it's still accurate as of 2023.

2. Query language - both use Datalog and support the Datomic `pull` syntax. XTDB also supports SQL.

3. Datomic's EAVT quadruplets are a compelling feature because they are so generic and can be used/re-used in many contexts. A document database would have to fit your use case pretty directly.

4. Datomic has a single transactor process. Do you need distributed transactions? Does Datomic need distributed transactions? You'd have to find someone from say, Nubank, and ask them for war stories. :-)

5. Datomic is now free-as-in-beer.

In my unqualified opinion XTDB is appropriate to choose in the following situations:

- You need to model "valid time" as part of your domain.

- Do you want a document database and are happy with everything that entails?

- You need access to the source code of your database.

- Do you have existing analysts who know SQL but don't know or can't learn Datalog?

Can you elaborate?

Then you're asking a rhetorical question to be snarky.

No, I’m not and I really don’t understand how you’d come to that conclusion. I really want to know why you’d lump in car ads along with ads for alcohol and cigarettes.

I already gave one possible answer, which is also my opinion.

It's easy enough to imagine someone else might go further with the reasoning about safety, pollution etc and decide all cars should be banned, rather than a subset.

The following quote was written in 1930, in the New York Times:

"Some day no one will have to work more than two days a week... The human being can consume so much and no more. When we reach the point when the world produces all the goods that it needs in two days, as it inevitably will, we must curtail our production of goods and turn our attention to the great problem of what to do with our new leisure."

Given the advances in productivity over the last century, why do I have to work 5 days a week?

I read somewhere that we modern people DO have much more leisure time -- we just decide to take it all in a block at the end of our lives.

(In other words, instead of retiring at 65 and dying at 68, like someone might have in 1930, we're more likely to retire at 65 and die at 78.)

That's an interesting take. What makes you think diversity played a major role? Does this happen often in your country? Where I am "diversity" hiring would be regarded as dysfunctional at best.

What makes me to think that diversity could have played a major factor is my observation with similar hires in other places, my experience in the hiring committees recently (members saying there is pressure to hire a female), and the fact that this person’s qualifications seem to be less than those of others excepted to be available for the role of CTO at such renowned company.

To each their own! I feel the same way about Algol family languages, too many arbitrary design decisions that have been internalised for decades at this point for my liking.

SBCL's save-lisp-and-die is my all time favourite function name. It's so unintentionally melodramatic :)

I have no intention of being snarky and I'd like to engage in good faith, but I'm aware of how this will read:

How is it a useful metaphor? I don't understand how you can use it to extrapolate from a situation in which you vastly outmatch an opponent to one of equals or you being outmatched. It seems too general and abstract to be worth more than "that's neat" status.

Other HN responders seem to be using it to mean a variety of different concepts including tempo, having superior heuristics built via prior observation or simply "thinking then acting".

I may be mistaken but I think Electric Clojure renders HTMX unnecessary. Where HTMX still works by a developer specifying the network calls (albeit in a declarative manner), Electric Clojure hands over the same responsibility to the compiler.

As a security guy I would say this situation happens with reasonable frequency in REST web frameworks where developers are encouraged to use ORMs[0], and the design of Hyperfiddle/Electric is no more likely to fall victim to it.

I'd actually take a punt that it's less likely because of Clojure's data-orientation. Given that the above mentioned ORM-preferring frameworks typically have to define a whole new class and map the data from a server-side representation to a client-side representation, you're more likely to see developers not bother, forget or bungle the implementation aspect.

What I'm interested in is how Electric Clojure handles mass assignment (unconstrained deserialization)[1], sort of the flip side of excessive data exposure. If an (e/server) s-exp uses the symbol `is-admin?` will the server respect or discard values for `is-admin?` sent from the client?

[0] https://github.com/OWASP/API-Security/blob/master/2019/en/sr... [1] https://github.com/OWASP/API-Security/blob/master/2019/en/sr...

The only way for the client to set a server-side symbol to a value is to explicitly request it in code

    (e/server (let [is-admin? (e/client ...)]))

Even with mutable atoms you'd have to write the `reset!` on the server.