Which statements are incorrect? Someone from the team responded directly to all points above here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344575 If you want to debate the reasons why, maybe respond to that thread? I don't, but I assume they're competent and telling the truth. The claims here about the reasons being wrong and the team not being competent appear to be incorrect and emotionally based. I can understand people being upset about losing support for something they use, but the assumptions and accusations seem misplaced, and fwiw, two years late.
> It’s not clear why they had to publish a blog post in the first place
Why shouldn't they? What's the functional difference between a blog post and a FAQ anyway? I don't understand your complaint - are you asking why they published anything or asking why it's not on a different web page? Your critique, like the one above it, is still not making any case for why they should continue to support MySQL.
I would assume that having announced this move two years ago, they've had a few customers ask why. I would assume that a company that cares about it's users but needs to drop support for something some of them still use, they would take some time to elaborate on their reasons, precisely because they care.
Is this comment directed at the parent comment or the blog post itself? :)
In your critique of their argument, I don’t see a single reason why they should use MySQL. So why should they continue to use MySQL? Why should they solve nested groups and long text columns? What does that buy them?
> All they had to do was implement a nested set pattern for their groups [1]
I admit I have a sensitivity to knee-jerk “can’t you just” comments, but reading the first paragraph of your link, this doesn’t sound like an automatic win. Is it possible that they tried this and found out that it actually couldn’t be supported in a performant way? (Edit: turns out they did exactly that https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20344575) Either way, it sounds tricky... so back to the real question... why bother?
“Updating requires renumbering and is therefore expensive. Refinements that use rational numbers instead of integers can avoid renumbering, and so are faster to update, although much more complicated.”