Re: official support for more scripting languages in gnome needed

[Craig Kelley <ink inconnu isu edu>]

On Sun, 18 Mar 2001, Ben Ford wrote:

>
> > > >
> > > > And it will also result in at least one fewer Gnome user.  Me.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And me. :-).
> >
> > Why should you care what language a useful tool is written in?  For many
> > tasks, there is no noticable speed or CPU usage problems when choosing a
> > scripting language.  Often these languages let the programmer write
> > shorter programs that are less likely to have bugs in them.  Why is this a
> > bad thing?
> >
> > Do you refuse to play AisleRiot because the game rules are written in
> > scheme?
> >
> > I am not sure I am in favour of rewriting existing applications in python
> > or perl just for the sake of using a scripting language though.
> >
> > James.
>
> You are making the argument for Visual Basic.  Do you remember the
> proliferation of *very* bad programs when VB hit?  What is the next step?
> Perl macros in email?

As if C programs are any better...

I would assume that most people already have perl and python on their
machines, and making GNOME aware of them is a good thing.  For those that
do not have them, then they will not be able to use whatever is written
with them.

Cool technology like SWIG gives you the best of all worlds; the speed of C
without all the danger/bother.

-- 
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley  -- kellcrai isu edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger ink inconnu isu edu for PGP block