From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Usability, MySQL, Postgresql.org, gborg, contrib, |
Date: | 2004-04-26 18:31:27 |
Message-ID: | 18211.24.91.171.78.1083004287.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:15:19PM -0400, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com wrote:
>> (5) Programming languages. We need to make a programming language
>> standard
>> in PostgreSQL. plpgsql is good, but isn't someone working on a Java
>> language. That would be pretty slick.
>
> If there's going to be a single standard language, I strongly believe it
> should be plpgsql. Any other language means that you have to find
> something that someone else knows or is willing to learn, whereas anyone
> using a database already knows SQL. plpgsql is simply an extension of
> SQL, and is trivial for anyone who's worked with any other database
> procedural languages to pickup. Asking a DBA to learn java or perl or
> PHP is asking a lot.
>
> If anything I'd like to see more features brought into plpgsql, like
> packages (ala Oracle).
Sorry, by standard, I meant installed by default, not to the exclusion of
all else.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | pgsql | 2004-04-26 18:42:10 | Re: Usability, MySQL, Postgresql.org, gborg, contrib, etc. |
Previous Message | Glen Parker | 2004-04-26 18:30:07 | FW: Do we prefer software that works or software that looks good? |