[racket] Racket in the large

> It's certainly possible. I haven't looked at the Oracle C API(s), but I would
> estimate it would take between one and two thousand lines of Racket code.
> ODBC support, for comparison, currently takes about 1500 lines. More
> features, like interval types and asynchronous execution, will add to that.
> 
> What benefits would "native" Oracle support provide (compared to ODBC) to
> justify the cost?

Better speed (at least in theory; benchmarks would be required).

> It sounds like you want some kind of abstract SQL syntax. I'll probably try to
> do something like that.

Exactly.

> > 2. A generic library (probably written in C / C++) that provides all
> > the low-level trappings for #1.
> > 3. A set of drivers (written in C / C++), one for each RDBMS, that #2
> > uses when configured to talk to that particular RDBMS.
> 
> Why would I write C code when I could write Racket code? These are
> currently done using Racket and, when necessary, FFI bindings.

I am a noob regarding FFI, so I don't know what must be done in C and what can be done in Racket. C is the usual way to go for this kind of thing in other languages.

> Ryan

-- 
Gonzalo Diethelm