On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 4:30 PM, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 16:13 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> > Peter Eisentraut escribi?:
>> > > On m?n, 2010-02-01 at 12:01 -0800, Nathan Boley wrote:
>> > > > I code nearly exclusively in python and C, but I have
>> > > > often found pl/python to be very unwieldy. For this reason I often
>> > > > use pl/perl or pl/pgsql for problems that, outside of postgres, I
>> > > > would always use python.
>> > >
>> > > I find that curious, because much of the criticism about the current
>> > > PL/Python can be traced back to the fact that the implementation used to
>> > > be an exact copy of PL/Perl.
>> >
>> > Perhaps the problem is that PL/Perl used to be unwieldy back when
>> > PL/Python was created. PL/Perl has definitely seen a lot more activity.
>>
>> I would love to know why PL/Python can't be incrementally improved like
>> the rest of our code.
>
> It has been. That is exactly what PeterE has been doing.
>
> However, if you look at this whole thread, you will see the James has a
> very different view of the implementation. One that at least appears to
> be more advanced and "pythonic" than our version.
I don't know if the native typing stuff is "more advanced" than our
current code or not; that's kind of fuzzy terminology if you think
about it. It is, however, a lot different than what we do in the
existing PL/python, or, to the best of my knowledge, any of the other
PLs with, perhaps, the exception of PL/pgsql. So conceivably someone
could submit a PL/perlNG, a PL/lolcodeNG, etc. taking a similar
approach. It's worth thinking about how we feel about that.
...Robert
