> On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Tristan Gingold <tging...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> On 04/07/16 17:48, Lehmann, Patrick wrote:
>> Hello Adam,
>>
>> I'm not implementing this feature, so it's not my choice, but Tcl is a
>> horrible language ;)
>>
>> I know it was originally designed as an embedded scripting language
>> especially for CAE
>> (EDA, CAD, ...) tools, but there are way better and easier embedded or
>> embeddable
>> scripting language available. For example:
>> - Python can be embedded in a few lines of C code. Its giving you access to
>> a very big
>> standard library and an easy to learn syntax. Having a Python interface
>> for GHDL
>> (longterm wish from me) could ease the handling of testbench interfaces
>> (Cocotb,
>> VUnit, ...)
>> - LUA is used in many projects under the hood as scripting and configuration
>> language.
>> See for example LuaTeX, Logitech keyboard scripting, ...
>>
>> Even a big EDA vendor is considering Python as new scripting interface...
>>
>> So in my personal option: having a scripting interface could be a new big
>> feature for GHDL,
>> but Tcl would be my first and second choice.
>
> I agree. Yes to scripting, but maybe not with tcl.
> (Although it would be better to have a generic scripting infrastructure to
> support any language).
Generic is fine, but i agree with Patrick that Tcl is a "language" to be
avoided at all costs. Python is good. Note that GDB adopted Python as its
scripting language some time ago after considering a bunch of alternatives. It
has the advantage of substantially cleaner syntax than most if not all
competitors. And yes, embedding it is pretty simple. Note though that there
is some complexity in supporting both Python 2 and Python 3 since the internals
are slightly different, and not as well documented as they ought to be. (If
you want to support only one of the two, make it Python 3.)
paul
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
Ghdl-discuss@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
