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