On Jul 1 2013 7:08 PM, Matt Shaver wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:09:21 +0200 > Michael Haberler <mai...@mah.priv.at> wrote: > >> >> Am 01.07.2013 um 16:20 schrieb EBo <e...@sandien.com>: > >> > hat raises a question though how deeply you want >> > Python to get into LinuxCNC. >> >> No, it does not; a key/value pair-based API does not imply any >> language. > > You did make the connection in your previous e-mail that: > > "the way I envisage it to be is to be rather pythonic than c-ish, > namely using name/value pairs as arguments rather than say positional > arguments" > > That's what EBo is referring to :)
yep. I agree that we can use a specific languages features as inspirations to adsress a problem in any language, but I would like my question to still stand -- how much of this do we want to implement in python and how much in other languages? I've started getting into some wicked cool python work at NASA-GSFC, and I can envision how one might write all but the most critical HRT parts of the code therein. I am not advocating that as you generally take at least a 3x runtime hit from that of C/Fortran. That being said, the multi-processing and regression testing tools are much easier to configure and use. So, I am just trying to picture the minimal language boundary. EBo -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Windows: Build for Windows Store. http://p.sf.net/sfu/windows-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Emc-developers mailing list Emc-developers@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers