<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: iron_fever</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=iron_fever</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 18:20:54 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=iron_fever" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by iron_fever in "CQL: Categorical Databases"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I know very little about databases, but I work heavily with category theory, so fwiw: I think the main benefit is composition. The edge over SQL shows up when you combine schema mappings - a mapping is a functor, so when you migrate data along it the constraints come with it by construction, and you don't end up writing ETL and hoping integrity held.<p>As best as I can tell (but i really dont know much about databases) it's probably a narrow advantage - storage and everyday queries still go to Codd's model - but for stitching schemas together it seems like it could work.<p>I'm using similar math for automated formal verification, where this approach is what makes it tractable.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:35:36 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48370097</link><dc:creator>iron_fever</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48370097</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48370097</guid></item></channel></rss>