> > It works rather well if you really have people familiar with the languages.
>
> Hmmm, ok. But one thing that raised in the former discussion is the fact
> that we need to target the language at novices and those who are not
> programmers, the example given there is Amirs Mom, I'm pretty sure she
> groks Perl scripts, but most peoples probably don't know how to program
> and so the language need to be a clear one and easy to learn for
> non-programmers.
I mean for the shoot out you need people familiar with the language to get
a fairly unbiased result. Algorithms/functions working well in one language
do not necessarily work well in another (heck, I have had people claiming
that Java is faster than C++ since one particular implementation of an
algorithm that no sensible C++-programmer would code that way was faster in
Java...)
I agree that actual usage of the language has to be as easy as possible.
And it would be nice if the LyX core could benefit from the language's
capabilities - i.e. we don't actually need our own unicode handling if the
script language provided a reasonable interface to its own unicode
handling. The same holds true for platform independent file handling or
spawning of external processes for which we currently only have some
scetchy "native LyX" support (and which would really become a mess once
you'd like to extend that to non-Unixoid systems...)
It looks like nobody really argues the necessity of _some_ embedded
scripting language, and it does not look like somebody wants to roll our
own.
I think we agree on the necessity of low-level LyXFunctions, which are good
per se since they could help to break the more complex ones into smaller,
easier maintainable parts. So if somebody would start working there ;-}
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
