Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
От | Christopher Browne |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
Дата | |
Msg-id | m3lld4kiq3.fsf@knuth.knuth.cbbrowne.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | PostgreSQL in the press again (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: PostgreSQL in the press again
Re: PostgreSQL in the press again |
Список | pgsql-advocacy |
Quoth JanWieck@Yahoo.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@interaccess.com>, comp.lang.C++
В списке pgsql-advocacy по дате отправления: