Robert Treat wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-11-23 at 13:47, Paul Ganainm wrote:
>> xzilla@users.sourceforge.net says...
>>
>> > A good example is our function language support. While most of the databases
>> > above support some type of procedural language, do any of them support more
>> > than 10 different types of procedural languages?
>>
>>
>> Maybe this is a silly question, but do you really need more than 10?
>> What's the matter with one that does a great job?
>>
>
> Rod Taylor touched on this, mention something like plR which is based on
> the R statistical language. Every language has it's strengths and
> weaknesses, with a variety of languages to choose from you can choose
> the best tool for the job. And by best I mean I am able to write
> functions in tcl to do socket connections that I would normally have to
> write in C. Given my inferior C skills, that's certainly a bonus.
The real point is, that if you find a procedural language that matches
the language your application is written in, chances are that you don't
run into many data representation difficulties and (more important) the
developers most likely know what they're doing.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
