[csiegert]

Deno Inc. has two core products: The free Deno runtime and the for-profit Deno Deploy, a Deno hosting service with 35 locations around the world. The question that often popped up was where to store data. Deno Inc. provided several guides to connect to different cloud services. But they want the friction reduced to a simple `await Deno.openKv()`.

Deno Inc. has enough expertise in running a global service that two other companies rely on their work to offer edge functions to their customers (Netlify and Supabase). Adding a database to the service makes sense. And to be clear, they don’t develop a brand new database. They build atop of SQLite and FoundationDB.

[wokwokwok]

> The question that often popped up was where to store data. Deno Inc. provided several guides to connect to different cloud services.

Sure.

> But they want the friction reduced to a simple `await Deno.openKv()`.

Do “they”?

If so, who’s using it to solve that problem? …because it seems the big uses of deno deploy are not using it, fine with that and it’s pretty unclear who the “they” is in this circumstance.

Still, if it’s a thin layer over foundation db or some other established database product and this is just part of the lock-in for their cloud offering, fair enough.

It’s not like others (eg firebase) don’t do the same thing.

The messaging “we’re building a database” and “we’re offering a hosted database service based on existing mature reliable technology” are different things though.

The latter all cloud vendors do.

The former is ridiculous, and it really really wasn’t clear that wasn’t what was happening.

[electroly]

"They" in OP's post is referring to Deno Land Inc.