Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base

From: C. P. Ghost <cpghost_at_cordula.ws>
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:00:54 +0200
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Andrew Reilly <areilly_at_bigpond.net.au> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 11:15:55PM -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
>> got any other suggestions?
>
> This is very much a "sorry I asked" question, but is none-the
> less quite a good one, given the size of the hole to be plugged.
>
> I think that a reasonable answer for this sort of thing might be
> one of the dynamic languages that compiles to C, like (perhaps)
> one of the schemes (chicken, gambit-C, bigloo, etc).  You get
> the benefit of flexibility and dynamism with good regexp and
> data structure ability, good performance, and only requiring the
> build tools available in the base system, as long as you don't
> want to be the developer: just ship the C code (as well as the
> source, of course).
>
> Unfortunately it seems that quite a lot of people have issues
> with lisp syntax these days.

+1 for a scheme shell, but not for the heavy-weight variety that
compiles to C, as that would tie them to a subset of ${ARCH}es.

After all LISP-like syntax is *still* more common and prevalent
than Lua, e.g. in Elisp, guile, esh, scsh and a lot of other apps
that use it as a small language. So we can expect more users
to be at least partially familiar with it. And there *are* lightweight
MIT- or BSD-licensed scheme interpreters out there too:

http://community.schemewiki.org/?scheme-faq-standards#implementations

-cpghost.

-- 
Cordula's Web. http://www.cordula.ws/
Received on Thu Aug 19 2010 - 14:27:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:06 UTC