Re: [HACKERS] plPHP in core?

On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 08:41:15PM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Jim C. Nasby wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 07:29:02AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >>This argument doesn't hold too much weight. Namely because there are only
> >>3-5 really popular languages out there. They are marketing languages.
> >>The are languages you include because your database doesn't "sound"
> >>complete with out them. Regardless if you can download them separately.
> >>People are lazy. They don't want to download them separately.
> >>
> >>I see those as:
> >>
> >>plPgsql (for Oracle people)
> >>plPerl
> >>plPHP
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What databases support perl or php stored procs/functions? Or python for
> >that matter?
> >
> >
> None on the server side (except PostgreSQL) which makes the
> argument all that more powerful :)

So what you're saying is that no database "sounds complete" because no
database includes PHP as a procedural language.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

From a database comparison/marketing standpoint, the only languages that
matter are C/C++, plpgsql and pljava, because these are the only
languages that other databases support.

Honestly, I think if we're going to spend time worrying about languages
as features then we should be doing more to advertise the fact that
perl/PHP/python/ruby/etc programmers can program in the database in
their native language. This is something that makes PostgreSQL unique
and should provide additional incentive for people to use PostgreSQL. I
don't think it matters much at all if those 'bonus languages' are
included in core or not, at least not to end-users.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828

Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"