From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:48:39 +0200
Date: 2002-05-21T20:48:39+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87lmadns60.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5ee5b646.0205151846.4b14a73f@posting.google.com
dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
> For the most part, the distinction between scripting languages and
> general purpose programming languages is bogus (and ends up being an
> excuse for some extraordinarily poor language design flying under
> the "scripting language" banner).
;-)
As a rule of thumb, most people consider something to be a scripting
language if it fulfills one or more of the following criteria:
- You can run the script as if no compilation is necessary.
- It is not feasible to implement the run-time environment mostly in
the language itself (either due to language constraints or
performance).
- There is no proper specification of the language.
- There is only one widely accepted implementation, which mostly
avoids compatibility problems.
- The language evolves constantly, often losing backwards
compatibility.
- It is possible to embed a language implementation in other, "real"
programs.
- There is no such thing as erroneous execution.
Of course, these rules are completely bogus, too, but I think those
rules catch the spirit of scripting languages rather well.
> When I say that we use Ada "as a" scripting language, what I mean is
> that we use Ada as a (perfectly satisfactory) language for achieving
> the kind of thing that is often done in a scripting language (by the
> way such languages often come along not only with bad designs, but
> bad software practices, including sloppy design and lack of proper
> documentation).
One nice thing about those scripting languages is the lack of
erroneous execution. For example, I'm quite confident that the dozens
of Emacs Lisp packages I use do not crash Emacs. I might lose some
data in the current buffer if I use them, but unless the package is
extremely poorly written, I won't lose an important message I'm typing
in another buffer.
That's why I think that dynamically loading, say, Ada code in an
editor instead of using a scripting language is not advantageous per
se.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-21 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-14 4:51 Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea? James Ross
2002-05-14 5:15 ` James Ross
2002-05-14 8:47 ` Ingo Marks
2002-05-14 14:21 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-14 19:24 ` Ingo Marks
2002-05-15 5:32 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-14 9:03 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-14 14:18 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-14 15:25 ` Larry Kilgallen
2002-05-14 16:45 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-15 6:33 ` Per Sandbergs
2002-05-15 8:52 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-15 11:35 ` Marc A. Criley
2002-05-15 12:56 ` Steve Doiel
2002-05-15 14:28 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-16 2:46 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-16 16:04 ` Darren New
2002-05-16 17:18 ` Wes Groleau
2002-05-16 18:52 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 14:33 ` Wes Groleau
2002-05-17 16:22 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 16:56 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 23:13 ` Wes Groleau
2002-05-17 23:20 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 16:58 ` Stephen Leake
2002-05-17 17:23 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 17:35 ` Pascal Obry
2002-05-17 17:44 ` Darren New
2002-05-17 18:02 ` Pascal Obry
2002-05-17 23:12 ` Wes Groleau
2002-05-17 23:27 ` Darren New
2002-05-18 2:54 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-18 2:59 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-28 0:31 ` David Thompson
2002-05-29 1:11 ` Robert Dewar
2002-05-21 20:48 ` Florian Weimer [this message]
2002-05-21 21:05 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-22 7:17 ` Pascal Obry
2002-05-22 11:29 ` Preben Randhol
2002-05-21 20:35 ` Florian Weimer
2002-05-15 11:39 ` Bill Tate
2002-05-17 19:24 ` Gerhard Häring
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox