On 2011-05-04, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:27:36PM +0200, Tommaso Cucinotta wrote:
>> Il 04/05/2011 17:16, Rob Oakes ha scritto:

...

>> Also, if really we have too many features, what about trying to
>> embed some modularity in LyX and make them dynamically loadable
>> on-demand ?

> Overengineered extra code to maintain.

> Plugin systemis only (or rather, "at most") make sense if there's
> a decent chance to have third parties creating plugins that are
> not maintained/distributed with the main product.

I vote for "script plugins"

> For LyX, assuming a probability of zero for that case seems to be
> a good first approximation.

Using a script language for extensions/plugins will raise this
probability significantly.

As language I'd use one of:

Lua 
  + small and fast,
  + used in LuaTeX, so it will become more common and known in the
    TeX community,
  + a Lua interpreter can be embedded in LyX with minimal impact on
    the binary size.
    
Python
  + we already "outsource" many tasks to Python scripts,
  + comes with "batteries included",
  + more widespread.

Günter   


Reply via email to