On Wed, 2 May 2001, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > > 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 with that.
> 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.
Rolling our own is not such a good idea, unless one of the developers is a
language developer on his spare time (or work time). Language design for
a language that would be easy to use and useful is not a simple task.
> 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 ;-}
I think Lars is already bored with saying that he doesn't want any such
code in LyX proper right now, so this whole embedding stuff is to be
delayed, it will be pretty hard to maintain such a thing without having it
in CVS.
Lars, will you make a concession to accept the embedding code into a
branch? It might be better anyhow to work this out in a branch rather than
on the trunk.
Baruch
