On 02/09/14 05:24, Craig Ringer wrote:
> I couldn't disagree more.
>
> If we were to implement anything, it'd be PL/PSM
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM). I'm sure it's as bizarre and
> quirky as anything else the SQL committee has brought forth, but it's at
> least a standard(ish) language. So we'd choose a bizarre and quirky language instead of anything
better just because it's standard. I'm sure current and prospective
users will surely prefer a bizarre and quirky language that is standard
approved, rather than a modern, comfortable, easy-to-use, that is not
embodied by the ISO. No doubt ^_^
>
> Creating a new language when there are already many existing contenders
> is absolutely nonsensical. Other than PL/PSM the only thing that'd make
> any sense would be to *pick a suitable existing language* like Lua or
> JavaScript and bless it as a supported, always-available, in-core
> language runtime that's compiled in by default.
That is in my opinion a way more sensible choice. To bless
PL/JavaScript as an in-core language would be a very wise choice.
Álvaro
