On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:51:43PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 4:59 AM, Gavin Flower
> <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> wrote:
> >> Is this completely unrealistic or is it carved in stone PostgreSQL will
> >> always be a C project forever and ever?
> >>
> > From my very limited understanding, PostgreSQL is more likely to be
> > converted to C++!
> I'm tempted to snarkily reply that we should start by finishing the
> conversion of PostgreSQL from LISP to C before we worry about
> converting it to anything else.  There are various code comments that
> imply that it actually was LISP at one time and I can certainly
> believe that given our incredibly wasteful use of linked lists in so
> many places.  gram.y asserts that this problem was fixed as far as the
> grammar is concerned...
>  *        AUTHOR                        DATE                    MAJOR EVENT
>  *        Andrew Yu                     Sept, 1994
> POSTQUEL to SQL conversion
>  *        Andrew Yu                     Oct, 1994               lispy
> code conversion
> ...but I think it'd be fair to say that even there it was fixed only in part.

David Gould (added to Cc:) mentioned that he had some ideas as to how
to address this.

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to