To: Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>
Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: C++ with PG 7.4? 
In-reply-to: <3FE66520.9040703@mailinator.com> 
References: <3FE66520.9040703@mailinator.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com>
	message dated "Sun, 21 Dec 2003 22:29:36 -0500"
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:04:05 -0500
Message-ID: <29477.1072069445@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Carlos Moreno <carlos.moreno@mailinator.com> writes:
>> Finally, please reconsider what you say about libpq++.

> Well, it always compiled when it was compiled together with PostgreSQL
> as a whole.

s/always compiled/sometimes worked on some platforms/.  libpq++ was a
constant portability headache.  This was in fact not libpq++'s fault;
the problem was that C++ was a moving target, both as to the language
itself and the expected standard library.  Perhaps the C++ people
have finally got their act together, but it's too late.  We won't be
buying back into that morass.  Postgres is a C project and we have other
things to do than cope with STL-flavor-of-the-month.

> Anyway, coming back to the libpq++ issue... I understand the basic
> rationale behind the decision.  But I still think C++ users are
> being treated very unfairly.

Most of the other non-C interfaces have been pushed out of the core
server distribution as well.  The core committee wants to focus on
improving the backend, not on fixing random portability problems in
language-specific client interfaces.  That's not to say that the
client interfaces are not important; it's to say that they are their
own projects and need their own developers and release schedules.
If you want to see libpq++ worked on, go join that project on
gborg.postgresql.org and help work on it.

(FWIW, I'd suggest joining the libpqxx project instead; libpq++ does
not seem to have a critical mass of users/developers anymore.)

			regards, tom lane