On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 10:43:39AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Jeff Davis wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 09:41 -0700, David Fetter wrote:
> >> "First, the ability to write functions and stored procedures is
> >> somewhat more limited than you would get with Oracle's PL/SQL or
> >> Sybase's T-SQL."
> >>
> >> I don't know which languages they were looking at, but it's hard
> >> to imagine how PL/SQL or T-SQL outdid PL/Perl, PL/PythonU,
> >> PL/Ruby, PL/sh, etc. from a flexibility perspective.
> >
> > Or C, for that matter. Doesn't get much less "limited" than
> > allowing C functions with a very powerful SPI. It's hard to argue
> > with them when they don't provide a single example, however.
>
> O.k. guys, the article wasn't perfect but it was a heck of a lot
> more fair an accurate then what we usually see from the press.
I'd think you of all people would be a little peeved at having your
support dismissed this way by their failure to mention that your kind
of support was available.
> I have already written the editor with a note about the
> misconception of our procedural languages.
That's a start :) You'll notice what I started this off with, which
is "With friends like these..." These guys wrote a book on
PostgreSQL. They should know better, but for some reason have decided
to spread a bunch of FUD.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666
Skype: davidfetter
Remember to vote!
