gavino <········@yahoo.com> wrote:
+---------------
| can perl+mysql beat lisp?
+---------------
Personally, I prefer Common Lisp (e.g., CMUCL) + PostgreSQL.
-Rob
p.s. See <http://www.cliki.net/database> for more...
-----
Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Rob Warnock wrote:
> gavino <········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | can perl+mysql beat lisp?
> +---------------
>
> Personally, I prefer Common Lisp (e.g., CMUCL) + PostgreSQL.
Our app runs on SBCL with a PostgreSQL backend. I love the socket
interface that means my development box doesn't need those annoying ffi
libs. And something abstract about the 'feel' of pgSQL seems more
professional and refined than MySQL.
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: is it best to use lisp without a db (like postgresql)
Date:
Message-ID: <op.tduz1tofpqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:46:47 +0200, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
> gavino <········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> +---------------
> | can perl+mysql beat lisp?
> +---------------
>
> Personally, I prefer Common Lisp (e.g., CMUCL) + PostgreSQL.
>
>
> -Rob
>
> p.s. See <http://www.cliki.net/database> for more...
>
> -----
> Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
> 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
>
You might want to check out MySQL 5.
Lots of new features.
Distributed database engine (SQL Cluster), ACID compliant DB now
default(oladb), full SQL support
like views and triggers.
MySQL seems to be evolving faster than PostgreSQL.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Hello John,
I find PostgreSQL to be more "Lisp friendly" because of the pure Lisp
(no FFI) socket client interface library:
http://common-lisp.net/project/pg/
The socket interface to MySQL is complex and as far as I know there are
no pure Lisp MySQL libraries. Also, although I do use MySQL a lot, I
use PostgreSQL more frequently - in my opinion (unsubstantiated :-)
PostgreSQL is the better database system.
-Mark
John Thingstad wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 09:46:47 +0200, Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org> wrote:
>
> > gavino <········@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > +---------------
> > | can perl+mysql beat lisp?
> > +---------------
> >
> > Personally, I prefer Common Lisp (e.g., CMUCL) + PostgreSQL.
> >
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > p.s. See <http://www.cliki.net/database> for more...
> >
> > -----
> > Rob Warnock <····@rpw3.org>
> > 627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
> > San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
> >
>
> You might want to check out MySQL 5.
> Lots of new features.
> Distributed database engine (SQL Cluster), ACID compliant DB now
> default(oladb), full SQL support
> like views and triggers.
> MySQL seems to be evolving faster than PostgreSQL.
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
From: John Thingstad
Subject: Re: is it best to use lisp without a db (like postgresql)
Date:
Message-ID: <op.tdvmr5g1pqzri1@pandora.upc.no>
Well Allegro Common Lisp has a Lisp interface so as far as I am
concerned that is not a problem.
Otherwise any ODBC interface should work under Windows
On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 16:33:48 +0200, Mark Watson <···········@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hello John,
>
> I find PostgreSQL to be more "Lisp friendly" because of the pure Lisp
> (no FFI) socket client interface library:
>
> http://common-lisp.net/project/pg/
>
> The socket interface to MySQL is complex and as far as I know there are
> no pure Lisp MySQL libraries. Also, although I do use MySQL a lot, I
> use PostgreSQL more frequently - in my opinion (unsubstantiated :-)
> PostgreSQL is the better database system.
>
> -Mark
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
gavino wrote:
> can perl+mysql beat lisp?
What's with all these one-line posts with totally vague and silly
questions?
From: Alain Picard
Subject: Re: is it best to use lisp without a db (like postgresql)
Date:
Message-ID: <8764h3hpm9.fsf@memetrics.com>
"Bill Atkins" <·········@gmail.com> writes:
> gavino wrote:
>> can perl+mysql beat lisp?
>
> What's with all these one-line posts with totally vague and silly
> questions?
It's called "trolling". Most newsreaders have this
thing called a "killfile". :-)
gavino wrote:
> can perl+mysql beat lisp?
No, lisp+mysql is better than perl+mysql - but I prefer PostgreSQL.
What sort of answer did you expect? :)
--
mvh, Lars Rune Nøstdal
http://lars.nostdal.org/
Le Sun, 06 Aug 2006 00:38:07 -0700, gavino a écrit :
> can perl+mysql beat lisp?
Absolutely. And it's a comparision about as sensible as between cars and
bycicles. MySQL, and any other RDBMS of it's kind, provides a very rich
set of features that it would be silly to reimplement from scratch in
Lisp. If you need transactions, concurrency or a powerful query
framwework, then use a database like this. And of course, use Lisp to
access it.
Though I think that for small data sets, it may be easier to
store sexprs in a flat file than use a DB. In this case, maybe Lisp
alone beats Perl+MySQL.
Doubtfully,
Nowhere man
--
···········@levallois.eu.org
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A
On 2006-08-06 02:38:07 -0500, "gavino" <········@yahoo.com> said:
> can perl+mysql beat lisp?
I think you meant to ask:
can perl+mysql beat (+ lisp mysql)?
The anwer, of course, is irrelevent because the word "beat" is
ambiguous to the point of signaling a parse error.
-Mike
--
Michael J. Forster <····@sharedlogic.ca>