Re: need extension language

[Per Bothner]

Hugh Arnold wrote:

> I need an extension language.  To this end, I've been tinkering with
> guile for the past couple of days and I'm quite taken.  However,
> Scheme's syntax is too arcane for my users.


Perhaps you mean "less familiar".  Scheme syntax is less "arcane"
than for example C's syntax - it is certainly much simpler, with C's
precedence rules, strange type syntax, and distinction between
functions and builtin arithmetic.

Perhaps you underestimate your users.  Learning syntax is the
easiest part of learning a new language, and Scheme's syntax is
simpler than most alternatives.  (Now Perl syntax - *that's* arcance!)

That said, I too have reservations about Scheme's syntax, especially
the syntax for control structures (let, for, etc).  Also, having to
use parentheses for even the simplest command may be inappropriate
for an interactive command language.  So at some point I will
probably implement some of my ideas for an alternative syntax.

If you or your users spend much time querying or generating XML
or HTML you might be interested in my Kawa-XQuery efforts
(see http://www.gnu.org/software/kawa/xquery/).  Kawa supports
multiple languages, including Scheme and XQuery, compiled down
to the same internals.

In the past I worked on the "Q" language, which I think had some
neat syntax ideas.  See http://www.bothner.com/per/software/index.html#Q

> Has anyone layered another syntax on top of guile?


There was a "ctax" way back, but I don't think anyone ever
used it for anything.

> Or can suggest
> alternative interpreters?  Any advice would be appreciated.


Python, Ruby, and JavaScript (not Java) are popular options.
I don't know how easy it to embed them in an existing applications,
but it probably isn't that difficult.
--
        --Per Bothner
address@hidden   http://www.bothner.com/per/