We already had serverless db for ages and it's called ... Google Sheets. You can even query it with simple SQL-like language.
The problem with most other "serverless" databases is that they don't offer HTTP API to query them from restricted environments like serverless functions.
Good job, Mastercard (and Visa)! Now all people opposing Putin and trying to gather money for leaflets will have to use state-created MIR instead. Putin will be pleased!
Basically I think this syntax addition is nonorthogonal, isn't making SQL any more powerful, but isn't solving the main usability problem, which is composability of queries in any way. Like writing JOIN's is not complicated if somewhat wordy already.
The issue, as i see it, is that adding this feature complicates the language parser even more for not that much actual gains.
1) Implementation has to do some nontrivual rewriting into actual JOIN's which uses indexes, previous special cases like NATURAL were purely syntax sugar
2) All of the tooling that depends on parsing SQL need to add sensible support or else noone will even recommend to use this
3) It is useless for anyone using ORMs in the first place, they will continue to generate normal JOIN's (less actual impact)
4) For anyone using prepared statements it automatically goes to "is not recommended to use" list because it makes your JOIN's depend on existence of foreign keys and corresponding indexes, which are an optional feature DB still should work without. I've had tasks in my career when my team added or removed foreign keys, so this type of JOIN's would make migrations even harder to do.
5) So considering all of the above this is feature designed purely for REPL and for this purpose it is also kind of useless. I can imagine remembering and typing column names in normal JOIN's, but foreign keys usually have some long unintelligeble autogenerated name.
I, personally, feel like this is a rather pointless addition to an already somewhat bloated language. It it isn't saving that much typing (we have NATURAL JOIN's already, nobody is using them), is kind of inconsistent with other language principles (we should be able to join anything to anything if we need to, see SQL-89) and limits JOIN flexibility (you don't have to join with "=" operator, JOIN's supports different types of conditions and are equivalent to WHERE clause)
There is also an interesting solution to this problem: use native WebView, so you don't have to pack the whole Chrome with your app. Basically every "electron alternative" with HTML+CSS+JS works this way.
Also, from the point of query optimisation this is a really bad idea. Usually you DO actually care about size of fields in SQL databases, because something like BOOLEAN is usually stored as single byte (or bit in a bitfield) vs 4 bytes or even 8 in case of timestamp. This not only multiplies on disk usage by at least 4 times, but also makes ALL indexes using this field way bigger. Also boolean indexes can be compressed (or stored as bitmaps), while timestamp indexes contain lots of unique values, so they can't be.
This is also the reason why serial IDs are way better than UUIDs for internal IDs.
If we follow the logic of the article's author to the end, then JS doesn't have this problem either. You can await on non-Promise values, so can just say that everything is red, add await to every function call and call it a day.
Personally I have an opposite problem of thinking too much about work after hours, but in case I really need to remember something it is written into notepad or note taking app. All modern text editors after introduction of Sublime Text (I use VSCode) have persistent sessions in settings, so I just keep lots of tabs (like in browser) and clear them after feature merge.