Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Extension language

[Colin Walters]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 01:23, David Brown wrote:

> I guess I missed what these extensions are for.  Are we talking about
> well-integrated bindings so that it is easy to write
> perl/python/ruby/ocaml/cobol code to manipulate arch things?  

Yes.

> There is
> still advantage to having one standard script language, since we can
> then share code we write.

This is like saying "We should all write every program in the same
language, so we can share code we write". 

In other words, a script language has *nothing* to do with arch, so you
are likely to get roughly the same percentages of people who prefer
various languages who use tla as in the general population.  Choosing an
arbitrary one of those (or inventing a new one) as tla's *sole* language
would be folly.

What may make some sense is distributing one of the bindings with tla by
default.  But it should 1) be optional and 2) *definitely* not preclude
other language bindings.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part