Embedded databases sit at a crossroads for tight, real-world workloads. The debate pits keeping SQLite in C against nudging it toward memory-safe runtimes like Rust, Zig, or Go. The core questions: memory safety, tooling, testing, and whether a rewrite would actually help in practice. [1]
Why keep SQLite in C? A C library can be wrapped cleanly by many languages, making interoperability a superpower for teams that deploy across stacks. That portability is a big win when you want a lighter footprint and broad language coverage, which helps embedded use cases without reimplementing everything. [1]
Rust/Zig/Go promises vs. realities Advocates point to memory safety as a safety net, but there are real tradeoffs. Rust binaries tend to be larger by default, and the overall ecosystem tooling can feel burdensome to some maintainers. Those concerns aren’t just theoretical in embedded contexts. [1]
Tooling and testing in the real world Debates also surface about packaging and tooling friction—static packaging, for example, can create compatibility headaches in environments like Debian. It’s not just about language purity; it’s about how you actually test, distribute, and maintain the database in field devices. [1]
What this means for embedded workloads The choice affects size, testability, and update paths as workloads evolve. In practice, many teams will weigh compatibility and maintenance costs against safety guarantees when deciding whether to stay with C or experiment with Rust, Zig, or Go-based paths. [1]
References
Why Is SQLite Coded In C
Debates SQLite C vs Rust/Zig/Go; memory safety, tooling, performance; embedded use, testing, and potential rewrites.
View source