From: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
Date: | 2004-11-14 07:11:48 |
Message-ID: | m3lld4kiq3.fsf@knuth.knuth.cbbrowne.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
Quoth JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com (Jan Wieck):
> On 11/13/2004 12:06 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It is never the fault of a programming language per se. People with
>>> a good understanding of object design will write "object oriented
>>> code" in every language, even assembler. People who just don't know
>>> what they are doing will write bad code, and the best Pascal
>>> compiler in the world won't be able to prevent that.
>> Yes but I believe even you would agree that their are programming
>> languages that are better for certain tasks than others. The use of
>> java as a replication engine for PostgreSQL seems, well... incorrect.
>
> Mammoth is written in C, the followup for eRServer will be C (++?) and
> Slony is C ... I guess disagreeing would be, well ... ignorant.
Sure, but I seem to recall that your Slony-I prototype was initially
in Tcl. There may be a Perl-based prototype of one of the new bits,
and if bottlenecks aren't evident, I'm not convinced everything has to
stay in C.
I don't think I'd propose Ada (Andrew Sullivan would be aghast! ;-)),
but I could see Perl or Python being reasonable languages for handling
processes where the _real_ bottlenecks lie in database access.
--
"cbbrowne","@","linuxfinances.info"
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/x.html
"If Ada became the hot, in-language you would see a lot more bad code
in Ada."
-- Thaddeus L. Olczyk <olczyk(at)interaccess(dot)com>, comp.lang.C++
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2004-11-14 09:54:48 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2004-11-14 07:05:21 | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |