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.
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
