>On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Ramon van Handel wrote:
>
>> We're perfectly capable of writing our own script interpeter. As a
>> matter of fact, that's what we've done up until now..
>
>Why re-invent the wheel? Surely (assuming a scripting language is
>really necessary) it makes more sense to use something that's already
>out there, to avoid learning and debugging yet another language?
>Python, Tcl, Scheme (rep or guile) and Perl are all possible
>embeddable extension lanaguages, and I'm sure there are loads of
>others.
All of those languages are overkill. IMO we don't WANT a scripting language,
but a configuration file. That's not worth embedding a python interpeter for.
As for reinventing the wheel, for something as simple as we need (IMO), it's
better to write your own interpeter and know the code inside out, than use
a "foreign" piece of code you don't know all the details of. That last option
is only useful, when the piece of code you embed it too complicated to
reimplement yourself in a reasonable period of time..
-- Ramon
