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

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, root wrote:
> Brian Rogoff wrote:
> > 
> ...
> > Charles did mention Python/C, and that's something I've been thinking
> > about a lot lately; a scripting language written in Ada. Of course, one of
> > the reasons for the success of C as a host for scripting languages is the
> > enormous base of C code out there, which Ada doesn't have. Nonetheless, a
> > scripting/extension language for Ada is an appealing idea.
> 
> "scripting/extension language in Ada" and "scripting/extension language
> for Ada" are different issues.

Not that different. Typically, the language of extension is the language
the scripting language is written in. Most people using Python or Tcl
won't write extensions in Ada, since they'd have to use Ada's C interface
to hook'em up. 

> I agree that the later is an appealing idea.
>  
> I also feel that there is a need for :
> 
> 1 - a scripting language : it could be a dramatic evolution over the
> various shell languages. We all have experienced small shell scripts
> that become bigger and bigger and cause stupid bugs that could be easily
> avoided by a more strongly typed language. Current scripting languages
> are unreadable and dangerous! Some Ada influence in this area would be
> great.

A (mostly) strongly typed scripting language sounds good, as long as you 
don't have to explicitly write type annotations everywhere.

> My feeling is that a small Ada subset interpreter could meet both needs.

I disagree. A scripting language has different needs.

> Obviously, file and process management, pattern matching, etc.. should
> be addressed in this subset. I am aware of the potential challenge that
> could be creating an interpreter of a to ambitious subset of the
> language, but we don't need the full Ada power. I think such an
> interpreter could be of a reasonable size.
>  
> > 
> > Dylan-over-Ada anyone? Yikes, that acronym is horrible :-)
> The most important progress is to have a readable and safe language.
> So why Dylan, Perl? Why not something close to Ada syntax? Each time i

How dare you compare Dylan and Perl for readability! Shame on you! :-)

-- Brian