On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 15:22 +0000, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Monday 19 Mar 2007 15:01, Guillaume Laurent wrote:
> > I'd rather say please hold on a bit. OK, this is a perfect example for the
> > use of an internal scripting language, but I'm quite reluctant about guile.
> > Even if it's been designed for that task, quick googling shows that it's
> > quite dead, especially compared to Python/Ruby. Also, I'm not sure how a
> > lisp-like syntax would help attracting users. and I've not been able to
> > quickly dig up a simple tutorial for the language.
> I'm not all that keen on Guile myself, but I think the really significant bit
> of the job is working out a sensible interface (at a semantic,
> language-independent level) for actually doing meaningful edits. If we can
> evolve something that works really well, and someone is keen enough to have a
> first cut at it, then I think we should take the opportunity.
> I don't have a strong preference for a scripting language. I probably dislike
> Python the most. Perl is inappropriate, Ruby looks OK though I don't really
> know it, Lua also seems to have the simple stuff more or less right. I don't
> mind Lisps like Guile, although I can see others might.
I know Ruby well now - I initially got into it because I was looking for
a scripting language to expose a c++ library, and I read a comment that
Ruby's internal API is nicer than either Perl's or Python's. Which
turned out to be true.
In the process I've discovered that Ruby is a really nice language.
And there's always SWIG, if you want to expose your API easily. Although
there is still some work to expose the API to a given scripting language
in its own idiom.