On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 01:17:27PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 8/16/05, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> > Sure... it hasn't been found. We can play the it "might have" or
> > "might not have" game all day long but it won't get us anywhere.
> > Today, and yesterday pl/Ruby can be run trust/untrusted, pl/python
> > can not.
> > > Both of these things could be said about Python when it was
> > > about the same age Ruby is now.
> >
> > But they can't be said about Python now. Again I love Python but I
> > can't use it the way I want to in the database.
> >
> > >>I believe that unless plPython can either be fixed
> > >
> > >
> > > Fixed how ?
> >
> > Be able to be trusted.
>
> Really a lot of your points seem either to be appealing to the fad
> appeal of Ruby or misinformation about Python. It's silliness.
It's not. In PL/parlance, "trusted" means "prevented from ever
opening a filehandle or a socket," and PL/PythonU is called
PL/Python*U* (U for *un*trusted) because it cannot be so prevented.
If somebody has figured out a way to make a PL/Python (without the U),
that's great, but nothing has happened on this front in a couple of
years, and Guido said that it was a problem with the language that he
wasn't going to fix.
> The inclusion of pl/ruby should be considered independently of
> pl/python, they are separate matters.
Not entirely. There are limited resources available for maintaining
PLs.
> I promise that the aggregate work required for all coders who know
> Python to switch to ruby is far far greater than the work required
> to fix the issues with pl/python. :)
Are you certain? See above in re: what Guido had to say.
Cheers,
D
--
David Fetter david@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
phone: +1 510 893 6100 mobile: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!