2014-09-02 11:44 GMT+02:00 Álvaro Hernández Tortosa <a...@nosys.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@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
