Dude, it's either REGARDLESS or IRREGARD.

There is no such thing as irregardless. Before you start criticizing websites, try graduating middle school first.

wow, that site does suck...

Erlang !

Erlang is a concurrency oriented programming language. It has been created as a means to write robust applications, running on a set of networked computers.

see http://www.erlang.org/ and http://www.erlang-projects.org/

Java??? Come on!

I used Java, Perl, Python, PHP and other popular languages for real-world programming -- over a dozen all together. I am using these three more frequently than others in the past three years because they are winers, when combined:

1. C -- For performance -- you need it!!!
2. Ruby -- I use this to replace Perl, Python, Tcl -- for quick and dirty development and for integration
3. Scheme/Guile -- for its elegance and to make me a better programmer

I only hope they benchmark more than just speed - PG is about being an RDBMS not about being a bloody souped up content delivery system... would be funny to put some data integrity bits in you test as well, and maybe uptime and reliability under heavy load... I can see it now..

MySQL-> TIMMMMMMMMBBBBBEERRRRRRRR.......CRASH!
PG->hmmm gotta work a bit harder here... oh well..

There's a lot more heat than light here. To say that an "rdbms is essentially a dbms" is logically correct but not necessarily helpful. Man is essentially an animal, but fish will never understand SQL.

'r' is for 'relational,' and whether you say an or a rdbms is a free choice of usage. It is possible to be relational without complying with the SQL standard, but it would be an odd design decision now. The essence of being relational is that the unit of organisation of data is the 'relation,' i.e. a set of 'tuples,' which is realised physically as tables, and may be presented as views. See E.F. Codd, C.J. Date or any works by the great pioneers done before most of today's practitioners were born, is seems. By this definition, PostgreSQL and MySQL come from utterly relational roots, although PostgreSQL has moved along a curve like Oracle to answer the desires of object-oriented thinking.

Codd, E.F. A Relational Model of Data for Large Shared Data Banks. CACM 13(6): 377-387. 1970.

mysql, in its standard configuration, is not an rdbms, since it doesn't adhere to the relational model or offer any relational integrity.

even when attempting to be an rdbms, i think its a little suspect, see:
http://www.pgro.uk7.net/innodb1.htm

there are countless other examples where it falls down on data integrity as well....

Both MySQL and PostgreSQL have relational querying features, although PostgreSQL enjoys more relational *constraint* features and abstractions (views, rules).

But then again according to Codd, Date, and other original relational thinkers, SQL itself is, by definition, not truly relational; it violates the relational model in several areas. So, even PostgreSQL (as much as I like it) does not deserve the title of RDBMS.

<rant>
No no no no no no!

MySQL is an SQL wrapper around flat files. There are no foreign keys and no transactions (and don't even start on the BDB and InnoDB table types - I want a god damn rdbms that has BOTH at the SAME TIME, not one or the other). Anyone who looks at MySQL, and I'm not saying its a bad piece of software.. but anyone that has only looked at MySQL without using PostgreSQL, Oracle or (God forbid) SQL Server, has NO concept of what an RDBMS is. MySQL is great for reporting and SELECTS but I want data consistency - look around the web, you'll find lots of examples of MySQL destroying YOUR data on insert.
</rant>