andrew@dunslane.net (Andrew Dunstan) writes:
> A.M. wrote:
>> Speaking of language choice, no one said that _all_ the source code
>> would need to be rewritten. It would be nice, for example, if
>> PostgreSQL rewrote the current GUC system with a glue language like
>> Lua (which is also very C-like).
>>
> No it wouldn't. All it would mean is that you'd need developers
> fluent in both languages.
I expect it would be both a little better *and* a little worse than
that.
On the "better" side, I don't expect that, in this instance, there
would be terribly much need for anything but the shallowest
understanding of Lua. If this were all there was to it, I'd contend
that there's little to object to.
However, there's a pretty considerable "worse" side, namely that
developers would need to understand the API for interfacing between
the "bits of C" that are the Lua 'external interface' and how that
gets "plumbed" into PostgreSQL. *That's* got very little to do with
language, per se; it has to do with the implementation of the
language.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/oses.html
"Real concurrency---in which one program actually continues to
function while you call up and use another---is more amazing but of
small use to the average person. How many programs do you have that
take more than a few seconds to perform any task?"
-- New York Times, 4/25/89