Refactoring-Summary VS SQLite

I find that reading books rather than code tends to be more helpful in terms of finding good takes on what clean code is -- more specifically books on refactoring or specific language-related features (like 'Effective Java' or 'Fluent Python'). The issue with just reading code is that many times - you'll miss out on why the author chose to use the expression or abstractions which they chose to use. Reading a book at least takes you through author's thought process. For an alternative - you could always browse repositories which contain notes on refactoring as well like this one (which does a good job summarizing some of the key principles from Fowler's book on refactoring):

https://github.com/HugoMatilla/Refactoring-Summary

https://github.com/HugoMatilla/Refactoring-Summary#28-encapsulate-collection

If you are into alternative storage engines for SQLite, there is also an LSM (Log-Structured Merge-tree) extension in the main repository that is not announced nor documented but seems to work. It’s based on the SQLite 4 project.

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/master/ext/lsm1

https://www.charlesleifer.com/blog/lsm-key-value-storage-in-...

The sqlite code base is really well done. Lots of documentation.

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite

Especially the VM part: https://github.com/spandanb/learndb-py/blob/master/learndb/v...

Compare it with this: https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/vdbe.c

That's said, I'm curious how complete this LearnDB is. SQLite is hard to read not only it's old but also it covers a lot of SQL and following SQL spec makes hings complicated. SQLite has great test suite so it's nice if you run the suit against this implementation.

Correct, see the github mirror[1]. I don't know how well supported that feature is compared to main branch. If it was completely stable, then it would have already landed in the main stable branch. Clarity about the roadmap of that branch would be nice.

1. https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/tree/begin-concurrent

Including comprehensive comments, documentation and tests in a codebase takes time and effort.

Failing to do so creates code that is very difficult to maintain or for someone new to the codebase to understand.

However, time and effort may not be what the organization wants to pay for, and individuals may view their own incomprehensible code as something like job security, as they can't be replaced by someone else easily.

As an example of complicated code that's still well-documented, the open-source sqlite code is a good example, about 1/4 of the B-tree file is comments, every time a variable is defined there's a short note explaining what it's used for, every function has a comment header that's comprehensive, such that someone new to the codebase could construct a map of how it all works fairly quickly. It's a good model for how to avoid the problem:

https://github.com/sqlite/sqlite/blob/master/src/btree.c