On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:45:23AM -0700, Neil Conway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 10:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > On the other hand, if we include PL/Perl, Tcl and Python but exclude Ruby > > from the main package we are effectively making a statement to Ruby users > > that their language is inferior in our consideration. > > Hardly -- no more so than not including JDBC and PL/Java in the main CVS > is evidence that we're all Java haters. The fact that we include > PL/Perl, PL/Python and PL/Tcl is more a matter of momentum/historical > accident than an expression of preference, IMHO.
External users will not know that, though; they will only see what is and isn't on the list of included PLs. It would be very easy for them to construe that as playing favorites. And to some extent they'd be right, just look at how much of these discussions have focused on how popular different languages are. Ultimately, I really think we need something akin to CPAN so that we don't have to bundle all kinds of stuff in the core package. In the meantime, adding PLs that we can is better than not, but we do need to be mindful of the impression it might leave on users. A page that lists the status of all PLs (specifically why they're not included if they're not) would be a good thing to have. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
