[Tfug] Language choices

[Bexley Hall]

Hi, Stephen,

--- Stephen Hooper <stephen.hooper at gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> did you need something that is already ready for
>>>>> embedding?  if so, into what other language? c?
>>>>> itself?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure I understand the question.  I want
to
>>>> be able to write applications (applets?) in this
>>>> language that I can bind to threads in my system
>>>> and cause to execute.  The application need not
>>>> be aware of the environment that invokes it.
>>>
>>> I think that there is some confusion... I think
>>> most people think you are looking for an
embeddable
>>> language.
>>
>> Why is that?
> 
> Because all the suggestions of Python, and Ruby, and
> the wikipedia article, and because of that last
> statement that you said you didn't understand :)

<grin>  Point made.  But, *my* point was "what have
I said/asked that would have led people to think that?

>>> I assumed (maybe from talking to you), that you
>>> were looking at "embedded" programming:

[snip]

>> Yes.  Though the distinction of "embedded" does not
>> imply missing some "functionality inherent in a
>> desktop PC"...

[snip]

> I didn't mean to imply that all embedded programming
> would necessarily lack all of those features, just
> some of the features.  For example, I assumed you
> were dealing without an Operating System.

No, I have a "real" Operating System.  I suspect much
more capable than most desktop operating systems  :>

> > My early comment on what I was seeking:
> >
> >   I'm looking for ideas for a lightweight
> scripting
> >   language to build into a couple of things.  But,
> >   I am unsure of the exact criteria I want to
> >   impose on my selection  :<
> 
> Yes.  But on the other hand, the suggestions that
> people are giving you as scripting languages, and
> the choices those are implying are in no way
> "lightweight".  Python, Ruby, Perl, etc. all
> require garbage collectors, and have very little
> hope of ever running without an underlying
> Operating System (simply because they would require
> such a massive development effort).

<frown>  Have I not been explicit enough in my
question, then?

[snip]

>> This is the sort of distinction I have been trying
>> to highlight in the two classes of applications I
>> need to address -- those that really do something
>> essential and are built upon by other applications
>> (e.g., DBMS server, MP3 player, etc.) in ways where
>> performance and resource consumption are important
>> considerations (a *slow* MP3 player is not an MP3
>> player!  :> ) vs. those that simply glue together
>> bigger constructs at a presentation level (like
>> building web pages... note that the *browser* is
>> not written in Java/perl/etc.!)
>>
>> Does that make things any clearer (sorry if I've
>> *not* been clear enough, previously...)
> 
> I wasn't implying that you weren't clear enough
> before, I just saw that some confusion may have
> arisen.  That is not uncommon when communicating,
> and figured everyone would benefit more if I
> explained to you what I though Takahashi meant.

Thanks!  *I* clearly didn't realize we were talking
on different wavelengths   :<

> I will leave the "glue" comment alone, as I am not
> fully sure I understand what you are asking about

E.g., when you are scripting something like a
web page, you don't usually *do* much in that
script.  Instead, you rely on other mechanisms
to do the real work and you just tie things together.

You may send a query to a DBMS for some data that
you need to display; you let a widget class implement
all of the UI devices; you let the browser handle
the presentation; the HTTP server handles getting
your page back to the user and input *from* the user;
etc.

When you are crafting a shell script, you may call
upon tar to examine the contents of a tarball,
awk to process the file list from that tarball,
shell builtins to print summaries of the data
in question, etc.

I.e. the script just patches things together -- like
calling functions/procedures in a "regular" program
and arranging for results from one subsystem into
the next, etc.

(sorry, a bad explanation but perhaps you can see
what I mean?)

> there.  Let me just ask, are you targetting a UNIX
> platform?

I'm developing under NetBSD and Solaris; running
under Jaluna and Inferno (currently) but, ultimately,
this runs on an RTOS of my own creation.  It's the
only way to get the features and performance that I
want/need.  Though one of it's personalities is
UN*X-ish enough to support things like PostgreSQL
(which is what I use for my RDBMS).

[have I clarified anything?  Or, just made matters
worse?? :< ]

--don

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com