Re: scripting/extension language for Ada (was : Re: tagged types extensions)

["Stanley R. Allen" <Stanley_R_Allen@raytheon.com>]

Ray Blaak wrote:
> 
> I think that Ada as a scripting language is not a good idea.
> 
> The philosophy of Ada caters to careful design and implementation, strong
> typing, etc.  Ada is a language useful for making well crafted software.
> 
> Scripting languages, on the other hand, tend to be used for small, quickly
> written programs, and good ones tend to have a succinct powerful notation.

This is bad reasoning, probably based on poor observation.  Scripts
are becoming a much bigger part of the software development scene, and
it's a shame that the script languages in use now are based so heavily
on the hacker mentality.  In our project, scripts have gotten very large
and are used for many critical capabilities.  Some are thousands of lines
long.  We maintain these scripts in our CM database just like the Ada, C,
and FORTRAN code.  They have long life -- over 5 years.  They must be
documented because they are updated by many hands over a long period of
time.  Sound familiar?

The philosophy of Ada, if not all its details, needs to migrate to
the world of script languages, because scripts ARE software -- the same
rules and pitfalls apply.

I question your criterion for a "good" script language -- "succinct powerful
notation".  Isn't this what we've come to learn as a receipe for
incomprehensibility?

> 
> I consider scsh (Scheme shell) to be an ideal scripting language: 
>
>  [cut]
> 
> Alternatively, Perl does just fine in a pinch.
> 

I can't comment on scsh, but I've seen enough Perl to know that
it is a hacker's language front-to-back.

I've heard rumors that Python is better than most in terms of supporting
"software engineering" in a script language.

-- 
Stanley Allen
mailto:Stanley_R_Allen@raytheon.com