> On Jul 4, 2016, at 2:37 PM, Adam Jensen <han...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> On 07/04/2016 02:21 PM, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Tristan Gingold <tging...@free.fr> wrote:
>>> 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.)
>
> Wow, I would not have guessed that this community would have such a
> strong aversion to Tcl. Is it the syntax? Or the Tcl culture?
I don't know anything about Tcl culture. In my case, the answer is most
emphatically the messed up syntax. I have had to write substantial code in
Tcl; it was the implementation language of the system management interface of a
router I worked on some years ago. I still remember it with horror; as a
result, Tcl is one of only two programming languages I've ever worked on (out
of about 40) that I refuse ever to touch again.
paul
_______________________________________________
Ghdl-discuss mailing list
Ghdl-discuss@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
