Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?

[Darren New <dnew@san.rr.com>]

Wes Groleau wrote:
> 
> > > Because I don't need those other four steps in Ada.
> >
> > Sorry. Of course I meant, I don't need those other four steps except in Ada.
> 
> If your script didn't write the script you are sourcing,
> then your Ada program doesn't need to write the program
> it invokes.

Um, right. If you look, I didn't say you did.

> > take to find an arbitrary Ada source, compile it in a cross-platform
> > way, write out all your state, invoke the compiled program, and then
> > somehow clean up all that afterwards, taking care to catch any errors.

I didn't say anything about creating the source there.

> You listed five steps, but your examples
> only do one of the steps--invoke.

That's because what you need to do in Ada is incomparible to the ease with
which you can do it in a typical scripting language. In Tcl, Perl, and
Python, for example, there's no need to write out the state, compile the
program, invoke a program, or clean up, because you don't need to do that to
add executable code to a process at runtime.

-- 
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.