Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I think if we're going to spend time worrying about languages
>> as features then we should be doing more to advertise the fact that
>> perl/PHP/python/ruby/etc programmers can program in the database in
>> their native language.
>>
> I agree with you completely.
>
Although others may like the ability to choose their PL language, I
would like it better if the important developers would pick one (and
only one) high-level scripting language (i.e., one that has built in
hashes, dynamic variable scoping, and the like), and declare it to be
the "sanctioned" language. (Others could still work on optional
languages as they do now.)
Thus, even though I know very little about Ruby or TCL, I would gladly
learn one of those if I knew that plruby or pltcl did all the stuff that
a pl should (wasn't missing functionality such as writing triggers,
set-returning functions), was efficiently implemented, was well tested,
and was installed by default.
Regards,
Paul Tillotson
