Thank you all for your opinion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 12:53 AM
> To: Gevik Babakhani
> Cc: 'Joshua Drake'; 'Jonah H. Harris'; 'Dave Page'; 'PGSQL
> Hackers'; heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com;
> david(at)fetter(dot)org; josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL future ideas
>
>
>
> Gevik Babakhani wrote:
> >> I think the better question about all of this is:
> >> What is the problem we are trying to solve?
> >> Providing solutions that are looking for problems doesn't help us.
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >
> > Perhaps the current codebase and design in C will serve us
> for years
> > and years to come. In fact there is no doubt about that and
> switching
> > to an OO design is no easy task. But times change and technologies
> > evolve. So should any software solution that is hoping to
> continue and
> > compete with other competitors of the same kind.
> >
> > Procedural programming languages like C may have been languages of
> > choice for many years but they gradually loose developer
> audience just
> > because of the reason above. I am afraid PG is no exception here.
> >
> >
>
> That's a two way street. I have far more experience in writing C than
> C++. No doubt I could adapt, but it would certainly slow me down for a
> while at least.
>
> Frankly, this looks like a solution in search of a problem. When OS
> kernels are all written in C++ I might accept that there is a
> good case,
> but I see no sign of anything like that happening.
>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>