From: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, dandl <david(at)andl(dot)org>, 'Adam Brusselback' <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Joy Arulraj' <jarulraj(at)cs(dot)cmu(dot)edu>, 'kang joni' <kangjoni76(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Dmitry Igrishin' <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
Date: | 2016-08-16 15:39:40 |
Message-ID: | 20160816183940.4818d854@e733 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Well, well, well. Another C vs C++ holly war, really?
> > In both cases, part of the motivation to change from C was to
> > appeal to new developers - from what I remember of the
> > discussions.
>
> Moving this to -hackers. Original thread at [1].
>
> tl;dr: A C++ port of Postgres has been created, and several folks on
> general have commented that this makes it easier to work with the
> Postgres codebase. This potentially attracts more developers to the
> project. I hope we can find a way to pull these folks into the fold.
Who are these "folks"? How many more developers it would attract
_exactly_, not potentially?
> People in core have complained that we don't have enough hackers
> coming in (which I agree with). Part of that is lack of familiarity
> with C.
One again, which "people"? I've seen people complained that there is
not enough code reviewers and testers. I doubt very much its something
C++ will help with.
> I think we can all agree that a C++ fork of Postgres would be a huge
> waste of time, so the question becomes should core postgres start
> supporting C++.
>
> Peter wrote a blog about this in 2013 that makes some good arguments
> [2]; in particular "easing into" this by first officially supporting
> C++ compilation. I also like the idea of investigating Rust.
And I wrote a blog post (in Russian) [1] in 2016 why nobody should (if
they can) write a new code in C++. In my opinion Rust looks way more
promising. However I personally prefer to wait like 5 years before
using a new and shiny technology. This is also something I blogged
about (in Russian [2], translation [3]).
> I realize there's little technical reason why we *need* C++ support.
You are right, there is none.
> The level if discipline applied to our codebase negates some of the
> benefits of C++. But maintaining the discipline takes a lot of time
> and effort, and makes it more difficult to attract new contributors.
There are companies. They hire developers who write code. Doesn't
really matters in which language.
Long story short - I strongly believe you are trying to solve a problem
that doesn't exist. And probably create a few new ones.
[1] http://eax.me/c-vs-cpp/
[2] http://eax.me/cpp-will-never-die/
[3] http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0324/
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joy Arulraj | 2016-08-16 15:43:36 | Re: C++ port of Postgres |
Previous Message | Yury Zhuravlev | 2016-08-16 15:22:17 | Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joy Arulraj | 2016-08-16 15:43:36 | Re: C++ port of Postgres |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-08-16 15:24:21 | Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL |