On 02/09/14 11:34, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 02/09/14 21:25, Álvaro Hernández Tortosa wrote:
>>
>> 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 ^_^
>>
>
> Well there is the risk that by randomly adding new syntax to PL/pgSQL
> we turn it in a bizarre and quirky *non standard* language. Part of
> the attraction of PL/pgsql is that it is Ada like - if we break that
> too much then...well...that would be bad. So I think a careful balance
> is needed, to add new features that keep the spirit of the original
> language.
>
I agree. I think I haven't suggested adding new syntax to pl/pgsql.
But having its syntax similar to ADA is IMHO not something good. I'm
sure few prospective postgres users would be compelled to that. They are
compelled about JavaScript, python, Scala or Ruby, to name a few, but
definitely not ADA.
Regards,
Álvaro
