From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,84bf0ec36cf20893 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-16 09:04:47 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ra.nrl.navy.mil!dca6-feed2.news.algx.net!allegiance!newsfeed1.cidera.com!Cidera!cyclone.columbus.rr.com!cyclone3.kc.rr.com!news3.kc.rr.com!twister.socal.rr.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CE3D8B4.C272C737@san.rr.com> From: Darren New X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? References: <5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0205151846.4b14a73f@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:04:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.75.151.160 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rr.com X-Trace: twister.socal.rr.com 1021565086 66.75.151.160 (Thu, 16 May 2002 09:04:46 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:04:46 PDT Organization: RoadRunner - West Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24209 Date: 2002-05-16T16:04:46+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > I find this definition silly. All these languages can perfectly well > be compiled, Errr, I don't know about applescript of vbscript, but both Perl and Python (and Tcl and ...) have operators that run code that has been generated at runtime. So while it's possible to compile the code, you can't (for example) eliminate the compiler from the runtime. > and any general purpose programming language can be > interpreted. True. > The difference between interpretetation and compilation is an > implementation > detail that has nothing whatever to do with the language. Well, some people look at a language and say "there has never been a compiled version of this", and from that describe it as "an interpreted language", for example. Even tho it is theoretically possible to compile the language, if nobody ever did, then it's not all that silly to say "it's an interpreted language." If you're talking about "AdaScript" as an untyped version of Ada, why would you even consider such a thing unless the point was to make it easier to interpret? I mean, there's already Ada compilers out there. What would be the advantage of making a compiler for an Ada-like language, but not as good? > For the most part, the distinction between scripting languages and > general > purpose programming languages is bogus (and ends up being an excuse Another definition often used is that scripting languages are "glue" languages, and stand poorly on their own. You wouldn't write a video driver or windowing system in Perl, nor an SQL engine, but you'd certainly write the thing that glues the windowing system to the SQL engine in Perl. You *would* write the SQL engine and video driver in Ada, but maybe not the rapidly-changing-don't-know-what-I-want part in Ada. You wouldn't write something that renders HTML or reads the mouse port in Javascript, but you would deal with the interactions between those two. Another feature of scripting languages is the almost casual use of dynamically loaded code. It's not uncommon at all to calculate at run time what executable code will be loaded, for example. (Think "java applets" if you aren't familiar with programming other scripting languages.) I think this is fairly difficult to do in Ada. -- Darren New San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand. ** http://home.san.rr.com/dnew/DNResume.html ** ** http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/ ** My brain needs a "back" button so I can remember where I left my coffee mug.