Re: PL/pgSQL 2

2014-09-02 11:44 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <aht(at)nosys(dot)es>:

>
> On 02/09/14 11:34, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
>
>> On 02/09/14 21:25, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
>>>
>>>> I couldn't disagree more.
>>>>
>>>> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
>>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
>>>> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at
>>>> least a standard(ish) language.
>>>>
>>> So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
>>> better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective
>>> users will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard
>>> approved, rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not
>>> embodied by the ISO. No doubt ^_^
>>>
>>>
>> Well there is the risk that by randomly adding new syntax to PL/pgSQL we
>> turn it in a bizarre and quirky *non standard* language. Part of the
>> attraction of PL/pgsql is that it is Ada like - if we break that too much
>> then...well...that would be bad. So I think a careful balance is needed, to
>> add new features that keep the spirit of the original language.
>>
>>
> I agree. I think I haven't suggested adding new syntax to pl/pgsql.
> But having its syntax similar to ADA is IMHO not something good. I'm sure
> few prospective postgres users would be compelled to that. They are
> compelled about JavaScript, python, Scala or Ruby, to name a few, but
> definitely not ADA.
>

SQL/PSM is mix near Modula -- like Lua

But integrated JavaScript can be good idea

And Lua too - it is faster than Javascript with less overhead, but with
significantly less community.

Pavel

>
> Regards,
>
> Álvaro
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>