I definitely feel this. So many "I made an alternative to X that fixes these issues, or is better in these ways" met with "Well X is fine for me, and I don't need those things, so why change?" These posts are obviously meant for adventurers, people looking to improve on the status quo, have some experimental budget left, etc.

Reading the repo, I'm not sure what it offers. It's still CGO for Go (edit: it's not, it's purego, but can that be used for SQLite too?), Rust already has `rusqlite`. It's beta, so it doesn't have stability, and 99% of why I and many other people choose SQLite is stability.

But they bluntly say you should use it instead of SQLite: "The next evolution of SQLite" (trademark ok?). This not only implies that SQLite has some significant design issues that merit a new version, but it also implies that they, not the SQLite author, are the ones who are capable of doing this. My guess is this is what's rubbing so many people the wrong way.

It's not being sold on its merits, and I think if they're going to make that sort of statement it's fair to make the standard somewhat high. If it's an AI-oriented database, sell it that way, not as an SQLite replacement.

I don't think uv had a negative reaction, because it had a really compelling case.