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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa2cc518ef3b992c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: scripting/extension language for Ada (was : Re: tagged types extensions) Date: 2000/02/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 583660460 Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) References: <389207CC.C16D80E8@averstar.com> <38971028.BB16D8A2@earthlink.net> <3899F757.FAE131B3@free.fr> <87gvdl$qsp$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-02-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: blaak@infomatch.com writes: > There is always room for a better language. Is Ada right for a > scripting language, though? No. > > Anyway, "quickly written" is irrelevant. The only time it can > > possibly make sense to use languages that are difficult to > > maintain is when you're going to quickly throw away the code > > after writing it. > > Nobody (at least not me) is advocating the use of scripting > languages that are difficult to maintain. Maybe *you're* not, but lots of people do so advocate. ;-) > Scripting languages should encourage programs that are easy to > write, easy to understand, and easy to change. Maybe we're not using "script" in the same way. For example, I consider the make files and whatnot that are used to build a program and run its regression tests, to be scripts. But these are long-lived pieces of software, and therefore need to be maintainable. So "easy to write" is mostly irrelevant. "easy to understand, and easy to change" are key. - Bob