https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=155786
--- Comment #8 from [email protected] --- (In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #7) > (In reply to zuebgirl from comment #6) > > (In reply to Julien Nabet from comment #5) > > > I don't know the state of Javascript support in LO but whatever it is, no > > > need to deprecate Python cause it's still widely spread or Basic since it > > > allows compatibility with VB from MsOffice. About Beanshell, I don't know > > > if > > > it's really used or not, I wouldn't be against its deprecation. > > > > > > About Javascript, I'm just a spectator of the race of the frameworks, > > > reactJS, nodeJS, Angular, ... and wonder if this domain is mature enough > > > or > > > if we should wait more. > > > > These are valid concerns, but my arguments against them are: > > > > -There is some momentum to replace or support Python with JS/TS. For > > example, because JS/TS is syntactically nicer language (curly brackets > > etc.). > > I don't see any information about "momentum to replace or support Python" so > could you add some refs? > "syntactically nicer language" thanks to curly brackets, isn't it a bit > subjective? Just a matter of taste for me. Personnally, I'm not against > curly brackets, lots of languages use it (including C++ used for LO) but I > appreciate the elegant way to make block just by indenting in Python. Consider for example: https://github.com/javascriptdata/scikit.js Then consider any of the opinion articles that you can find by searching for "typescript for data science" or similar. Finally, consider that the web browser is dominated by JS/TS. In the case of deploying to the web browser, people have used e.g. Flask for Python and a REST API. This is certainly less elegant than having the pipeline in a single language technology. The curly brackets etc. may make it easier to create advanced tools for the language. https://cjshaver.com/bl0172 > > -Having two fairly similar languages requires ~ double the support, but does > > it give double benefit? > > For those who use Python, it's not a matter to double benefit or not, it's a > matter to be able to program LO or not in Python so 0 or 1. https://xkcd.com/927/ > > -It's not necessary to maintain compatibility with MS Office, and taking > > this goal limits the prospects of LO. It's then a choice between whether > > support for MS Office is a better goal than designing an independent office > > software. > Since LO wants to support docx, xlsx, etc. in addition to odt, ods, ... I > suppose it's necessary. If it's not the case, it would mean to dump OOXML > support completely since quite some people, above all in companies, use > macros, so not sure LO people would be ok but I may be wrong. This could also motivate separate projects. For those that use only open formats, there's no need for MS Office compatibility. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
