I hate these discussions. Endless back and forth -- much ado about nothing. Yet...
"PostgresSQL" does seem kinda unwieldy and awkward. And the "SQL" part does
seem superfluous since most databases now support SQL in some way shape or
form. Adding "SQL" now seems almost as arbitrary as the previous "95".
Yes, not all databases can claim full SQL compliance, and Postgres does it
better than MySQL but so what? PostgreSQL's "competition" is much broader:
Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, etc. -- all of whom have excellent SQL support.
If it is deemed important to tack on defining features of a "next
generation" database then prehaps "OR" (object-relational) should be tacked
on instead of, or in addition to "SQL"? But in five years this will again
seem an unnecessary addition to "Postgre(s)" and the name would still be
cumbersome.
PostgreSQLOR?, PostgreSQL-OR?, PostgreORSQL? Postgre-ORSQL?
I really don't know what the best name would be, and keeping it the way it
is is just fine with me. I use PostgreSQL for what it is, not what it is
called. Returning to the core descriptive term: "Postgre(s)" would be fine
also.
John
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
