On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 14:34, Henri Lesourd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alvaro Tejero Cantero wrote: > > http://code.google.com/apis/v8/intro.html >> > I cannot see how this is relevant at all to TeXmacs. On the other hand, you could think about > a more conservative approach, namely, > translate the desired scripting languages > to Scheme. This is a big deal. IIRC, that was one of the stated initial goal of Scheme. And I am not aware that anything happened in this direction. > Especially: Python and Javascript should > be considered. Python because the combination > C/C++ plus Python is the approach of choice > when people need to perform resource intensive > scientific calculations (e.g. simulations). It would be more sensible to port TeXmacs to another scripting language. This would avoid a dramatic increase in the overall complexity of the system. > This being said, I don't know when the > resources will be available for tackling > such tasks... In my completely irrelevant opinion, it would be a much much better idea to fix the user interface. If any work should be done on the scripting aspect, it should rather focus on adding an automated test suite and either documenting or removing metalinguistic complexity such as the DRD system.
_______________________________________________ Texmacs-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/texmacs-dev
