Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

From: Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
To: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
Cc: Gavin Flower <GavinFlower(at)archidevsys(dot)co(dot)nz>, dandl <david(at)andl(dot)org>, 'Adam Brusselback' <adambrusselback(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Joy Arulraj' <jarulraj(at)cs(dot)cmu(dot)edu>, 'kang joni' <kangjoni76(at)gmail(dot)com>, 'Dmitry Igrishin' <dmitigr(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres
Date: 2016-08-16 15:39:40
Message-ID: 20160816183940.4818d854@e733
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Well, well, well. Another C vs C++ holly war, really?

> > In both cases, part of the motivation to change from C was to
> > appeal to new developers - from what I remember of the
> > discussions.
>
> Moving this to -hackers. Original thread at [1].
>
> tl;dr: A C++ port of Postgres has been created, and several folks on
> general have commented that this makes it easier to work with the
> Postgres codebase. This potentially attracts more developers to the
> project. I hope we can find a way to pull these folks into the fold.

Who are these "folks"? How many more developers it would attract
_exactly_, not potentially?

> People in core have complained that we don't have enough hackers
> coming in (which I agree with). Part of that is lack of familiarity
> with C.

One again, which "people"? I've seen people complained that there is
not enough code reviewers and testers. I doubt very much its something
C++ will help with.

> I think we can all agree that a C++ fork of Postgres would be a huge
> waste of time, so the question becomes should core postgres start
> supporting C++.
>
> Peter wrote a blog about this in 2013 that makes some good arguments
> [2]; in particular "easing into" this by first officially supporting
> C++ compilation. I also like the idea of investigating Rust.

And I wrote a blog post (in Russian) [1] in 2016 why nobody should (if
they can) write a new code in C++. In my opinion Rust looks way more
promising. However I personally prefer to wait like 5 years before
using a new and shiny technology. This is also something I blogged
about (in Russian [2], translation [3]).

> I realize there's little technical reason why we *need* C++ support.

You are right, there is none.

> The level if discipline applied to our codebase negates some of the
> benefits of C++. But maintaining the discipline takes a lot of time
> and effort, and makes it more difficult to attract new contributors.

There are companies. They hire developers who write code. Doesn't
really matters in which language.

Long story short - I strongly believe you are trying to solve a problem
that doesn't exist. And probably create a few new ones.

[1] http://eax.me/c-vs-cpp/
[2] http://eax.me/cpp-will-never-die/
[3] http://www.viva64.com/en/b/0324/

--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joy Arulraj 2016-08-16 15:43:36 Re: C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message Yury Zhuravlev 2016-08-16 15:22:17 Re: [GENERAL] C++ port of Postgres

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joy Arulraj 2016-08-16 15:43:36 Re: C++ port of Postgres
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-08-16 15:24:21 Re: PSA: Systemd will kill PostgreSQL