Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 21:41, Sean Middleditch wrote:

> 
> One of these languages could also be some kind of VB knock off, if you
> are offering to develop one for us.

Possibly. I think VBA is gonna be essential but I still prefer a generic
script engine using plug-in xml definitions. I could even write a VBA to
Python translator (or rather the script engine I will write will
generates python code from whatever plug-in language you use and then
pass it to the python interpreter for execution) 

> 
> > > But what do we actually need the XML for?  You've repeatedly stated how
> > > we need XML to solve this problem without actually stating why.  XML is
> > > just a syntax for heirarchial data.  What does that have to do with
> > > connecting a script language VM/interpreter to an application?
> > 
> > XML is just a good way to define the syntax for a particular script
> > language in a generic script engine. It could be done using an ini file
> > but XML is more standard nowadays.
> 
> But what do we need a syntax definition for?  What's wrong with the
> compilers and interpreters we already have?

Nothing except for possible dependancy hell.

> 
> Do you perhaps mean, instead of syntax, the API?  As in, the author of
> an application describes the objects/methods in their application with
> XML, and that is used by the script layer to generate bindings for the
> script language(s)?  That's quite possible (I do it myself in AweMUD). 
> Not sure how necessary it would be, tho.

Nope I want to avoid having to create new bindings - using python as the
execution layer would be advantageous here.


> 
> Chances are, most users would only be using the handful of mainstream
> languages anyhow.  Anyone running GNOME probably has Python installed
> (especially given how popular Python/pygtk are for writing full-scale
> applications).  Etc.

I agree but the point of having a script engine is to allow freedom to
use different languages - of course few will if it creates dependancy
problems. 

> 
> Yes, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have some kind of lite-weight
> "guaranteed to be there" language, perhaps JavaScript (using
> Spidermonkey) or whatever, so that users wishing to make their macros
> universally usable could do so.  That would be just one of the many
> languages available, however.  If your script framework takes away my
> choice to use a language I've already dedicated many hours to in order
> to become highly proficient with, your framework won't be very well
> received.

It would not - providing theres an xml definition for your language its
no problem at all.

jamie.