James Turner writes:
> A couple of comments on the
scripting issue:
> JS is very effective and
> manageable, orders of magnitude moreso than Perl.
> manageable, orders of magnitude moreso than Perl.
This
is good to hear.
> Python is equally
> good as the code size grows, but the syntax puts people off
> good as the code size grows, but the syntax puts people off
a simple matter of taste,
for example the other 'P' language syntax makes me cringe,
for example the other 'P' language syntax makes me cringe,
similarly to what Python's
'whitespace' does for some :-)
> the common library is
huge
This is true, however IMHO this is a plus in that there
is a large body of well TESTED code that can just be used
as is, FYI it is also quite fine grained and is 'cross-platform'.
This is true, however IMHO this is a plus in that there
is a large body of well TESTED code that can just be used
as is, FYI it is also quite fine grained and is 'cross-platform'.
> In terms of embedding a really
small interpreter, I know various
> people who've used Lua with great success
> people who've used Lua with great success
Yes, I have heard the
same
> One final point : everything
I've heard about SWIG indicates that it
> handles OO systems badly: it maps straight C to Perl/Tcl/etc well,
> but when you want to map classes to Java / Python / JS, it falls down
> pretty quickly.
> handles OO systems badly: it maps straight C to Perl/Tcl/etc well,
> but when you want to map classes to Java / Python / JS, it falls down
> pretty quickly.
This use to be a problem
however the latest version of
SWIG is much more OO friendly, it even has a 'reasonably'
SWIG is much more OO friendly, it even has a 'reasonably'
complete C++ parser builtin !!
> When I embedded Python in some
of my own code, I
> tried using SWIG briefly, gave up, and was able to use the native
> Python API far more effectively.
> tried using SWIG briefly, gave up, and was able to use the native
> Python API far more effectively.
SWIG does take a 'bit' of work to get
used to BUT
once over the hurdle it is MUCH easier to keep in
'sync' with the 'C' code base in that it 'usually' just
uses the project header files or a subset of them to
generate the 'wrappers' from.
once over the hurdle it is MUCH easier to keep in
'sync' with the 'C' code base in that it 'usually' just
uses the project header files or a subset of them to
generate the 'wrappers' from.
Plus with a little more thought you
can get Multi-Language
support too !
support too !
Norman
