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: 2002-05-21 13:48:39 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-han1.dfn.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news.belwue.de!cert.uni-stuttgart.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Would an *AdaScript* language be a good / bad idea?
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 22:48:39 +0200
Organization: Enyo -- not your organization
Message-ID: <87lmadns60.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <mr41eu4klae9knk5978o0ru89i5vjc6u2e@4ax.com>
 <5ee5b646.0205140618.2d789fc9@posting.google.com>
 <bWsE8.34889$UV4.7322@rwcrnsc54>
 <5ee5b646.0205151846.4b14a73f@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deneb.enyo.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: cygnus.enyo.de 1022014118 4030 212.9.189.171 (21 May 2002 20:48:39
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@enyo.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 May 2002 20:48:39 GMT
Cancel-Lock: sha1:FWWWsN6TFzMg5/1N3yfg0rRGO3k=
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24482
Date: 2002-05-21T20:48:39+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.