Re: Scripting in Gnome

[jamie <jamiem blueyonder co uk>]

On Mon, 2004-02-02 at 18:45, Rob Adams wrote:
> What advantage does a crappy language without useful and powerful
> language features have over the already-standard, powerful, fast,
> well-understood python and perl?  I would put forth that we'd have to
> have a clear, demonstrable advantage before we throw all that
> pre-existing effort on the floor and start something from scratch. 
> Something more than "perl is overkill".

With a generic script engine u can use any language u like including
perl and python so long as its syntax is defined by an xml definition.
The difference is it would be a cut down version with enough
functionality to support glue, automation and simple apps. I am not
proposing that nobody should use perl and python to develop apps or that
there is a better way. I am simpling proposing a simple lightweight
script engine that can support languages like VBA and be used in a
similar way.

Why simple and light? Microsoft provide an activeX scritping component
that any windows app can use to provide runtime scripting. So if u write
a word processor u can embed a lightweight script engine to support
macros. I am proposing something similar (it could be a bononbo
component say) which is generic and not tied to a particular language.
If gnumeric needs VBA support for Excel compatibiity it could use such a
component. If u wanted to use Javascript or some other language instead
of VBA - fine no problem. If u wanted to create ur own macro/scripting
language to embed in ur word processor - fine no problem. Its easy to do
and u dont need to write loads of new interpreters and bindings. 

The alternative is we dont have this functionality or we use existing
interpreters which would place a lot of dependencies on apps that embed
them and probably not end up being used much. With my proposal u get
consistency and flexibility.


jamie.