On ons, 2010-01-13 at 12:12 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 13:06 -0700, James William Pye wrote:
> > Function Modules:
> > - Does away with the need for GD/SD (more natural Python environment).
> > - Allows tracebacks (tracebacks are useful, right?) to implemented easily.
> > - Does *not* expose a bastardized variant of the language by pretending that "modules/script files" can return and
yield.
> > - Helps to promote the Python tenet of being explicit.
> >
> > Native Typing:
> > - Provides PG type introspection not available in any other PL, AFAIK.
> > - Improves efficiency in some cases (conversion must be _explicitly_ called for)
> > - MD Array support.
> > - Composites are a sequence and a mapping.
> >
> > Other features: http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP:plpython3
> >
> >
> > Aside from function modules and native typing, many of plpython3's features could be implemented incrementally.
However,I had a chance to sprint and they are available now in a new implementation. I did so, rather than improving
plpython,because I believe that native typing and function modules are very useful.
> >
> > I'm not sure this fulfills your request, but, hopefully, it's a start.
>
> It does actually. Now, hackers... as a Python guy I can say these things
> are truly useful, to a Python programmer trying to use Python as a
> procedural language with PostgreSQL.
The problem I'm having with this discussion is that every time someone
asks what the supposed advantages of this new Python PL are, a feature
list like the above is dumped, 75% of which is subjective and tends to
use semi-buzzwords, such that then someone else who by his own admission
isn't completely up to date on things says, sure, that sounds great.
Who wouldn't like a "more natural Python environment", "native typing"
and "efficiency", and maybe even "explicitness"? The current PL/Python
also has, arguably, a more natural Python environment, native typing,
efficiency, and explicitness. So there you go. Now what?
