From: John A. <ar...@se...> - 2007-03-20 09:33:07
|
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. bye John |