>
> Hmm. I read this as
>
> Problem: not enough hackers to maintain our PL languages.
>
> Proposed solution: add more PL languages.
>
> Somehow this doesn't seem quite right.
Although I see your point, that actually wasn't my point. My point was
that I felt we need a good well respected (and dare I say *hot*) new
language that was truly OO and could be run as a trusted/untrusted pl
language.
>
> If pl/ruby is going to get into the core, it should be because of demand
> for it based on its own merits.
I agree.
> I don't think this has got anything to
> do with pl/python.
Not directly but indirectly it does because for me at least, what drove
my negotiations was that plPython is an OO language that I enjoy but
can't use the way I want. pl/Ruby is an OO language that i enjoy that I
*CAN* use the way I want.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
