Ok.. So far, very valid points. Here's what we need to look at though:
1) Support for existing macros in other WP's such as Word, Wordperfect, etc.
2) Complete conversion from one macro lang. to another.
3) An easy to read and learn language with enough barriers for security
purposes.
If VB is not the case (which I'm thinking of existing coders out there. I
personally hate VB myself), then what would be the alternative? Keeping in
mind that the language must be able to both parse text and perform math
exceptionally well.
Options thus far?
(NOTE: 'Scripter' refers to your avg. windows Office hacker)
*C/C++ - Too high level for most scripters...
*Perl - Great string parsing, not overly powerful with math (I've had
problems in the past with this)
*Python - Don't code enough in it to make a fair judgement.
*Java - Too high level for most scripters...
*JavaScript - What math precision?? What string parsing? Easy to learn,
however.
*Scheme - Appearently math intensive, however, math looks a little crazy to
me. Probably won't make much sense to avg. scripter. Honestly don't know
the language myself, so no fair judgement from me.
*Homemade scripting language - Viable? Possibly. But you're looking at a
rather healthy development time doing such. Even then, would you be
reinventing the wheel in the process?
*Effiel - I've heard of this, but have NO CLUE...
*VB clone - has the benefit of thousands already knowing it, yet security
problems are readily appearant.
Also, what is the GNOME group using for macros in Gnumeric? I'd assume
(though, those can get you killed...) that they have implemented some sort
of base-macro language. What are they using?
This is going to be a rather important piece of Abiword, and possibly Kword
as well. It should be decided correctly the first time around for good
exposure.
Big Ed
>On Thu, 29 Jun 2000, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
>
> > If you don't use OO, hashes, pointers multi-dimensional arrays etc.
> > and you aren't easily confused by changing look of tokens ( begin/end to
>{/} etc.)
> > nor forcing indents they are almost equal.
> >
> > Function calls look the same.
> > Basic math looks the same.
> > There is the same logic under flow-control in them all.
> > All have statement/expresion, lvalue/rvalue etc.
> >
> > There are pascal2c and c++2c translating programs.
> > Perl's basics are very C-like.
> > Python is most different of them all, but also shares a lot with them.
> >
> > Compare they all to SCHEME (LISP).
> > See size of difference now ?
>
>Yes, they are clearly all very different from a functional language. And
>even more different from LISP dialects. But on each of your points, the
>similariteis you mention are not that significant.
>
>Flow-control - you could easily (well, maybe not easily) use recursion for
>all your c loops.
>
>Basic math - this is just a lisp thing. Haskell, for example, uses infix
>for math.
>
>statement/expression, rval, lval - all of these are present in scheme also
>for example, the following is illegal
>
>(define (+ 2 3) (+ 4 5))
>
> >
> > > > Please find (or invent - it's FREE-software world, everyone is free
>to create
> > > > a new language) a language with minimum syntax and almost-no silly
> > > > characters. Then we will start Replacement-For-VBasic Crusade. :-)
> > > > ( this paragraph is real, there is real lack of such language,
> > > > and inventing languages is easier now that any time before )
> > >
> > > Scheme has almost no syntax (see next message).
> > > Scheme has only one "silly character": the parenthesis.
> > > And that character makes programming *easier* in many cases.
> >
> > With `almost-no silly characters' I meant almost-no per line.
> > And there is one sillychar more : unbalanced-single-quote.
> >
>
>'x is just an abbreviation for (quote x).
>
>And I still don't think that (,) are silly.
>
> sam th
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.abisource.com/~sam
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
