On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Ramon van Handel wrote:
> >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.
I'm inclined to agree that we don't want a scripting language. But if
we did, then implementing a new one is silly.
> As for reinventing the wheel, for something as simple as we need
> (IMO),
I think this all depends on how simple it needs to be. I haven't yet
seen anything to indicate that it needs to be more than a key-value
type file.
> 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.
So we agree, but not necessarily about where to draw the "too
complicated" line. :-)
Chris
--
Chris Emerson, obsessed Cambridge juggler
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web page: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~cemerson/
