On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:44:48 -0400, Dave Angel <da...@davea.name> wrote:
>On 07/09/2013 09:29 PM, David T. Ashley wrote: >> We develop embedded software for 32-bit micros using Windows as the >> development platform. >> >> We are seeking a general purpose scripting language to automate >> certain tasks, like cleaning out certain directories of certain types >> of files in preparation for ZIP'ing, generating certain source files >> automatically, etc. >> >> Selection criteria: >> >> a)Should be able to compile the script interpreter as a monolithic >> executable (no .DLL dependencies, etc.) for easy versioning and >> distribution of the script interpreter. > >Oh, I thought you were going to run this on Windows. You're just >developing it on Windows, and you want to cross-compile to target some >other platform? Which? Sorry, I wasn't very complete. The scripts would run on Windows 7 only, but because they may generate part of the source code for the embedded system, we have to be careful about versioning the interpreter, and a monolithic executable makes that simpler. >> (Note that I'm not asking >> that the script be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run >> a script you'd need both the script and the interpreter. The script >> would be a text file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) > >If you're also constraining your "program" to a single text file, you >don't want Python. It uses modules, imported from your script to do >much of the work. > >> >> b)Should be extensible, in that one could add commands or library >> functions to the script interpreter in C (for efficiency), and the >> whole script interpreter could again consist of a single executable >> with no other dependencies. (Note that I'm not asking that the script >> be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run a script you'd >> need both the script and the interpreter. The script would be a text >> file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) > >And that's supposed to HELP efficiency?? Did I ever claim I wanted efficiency? >> c)Should be able to spawn compilers and capture the output, do file >> I/O, and all the other minor expected stuff. >> >> d)Graphical capability would be nice. >> >> I know that Tcl/Tk would do all of the above, I was able to do this with Tcl/Tk years ago. >I doubt it. > >> but what about Python? >> Any other alternatives? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
