> Also think about whether you only want VimL or VimL and Vim's api (:h > functions). If you want all of them .. good luck. I don't think this > makes much sense except functions like getline or getcursor.
Yeah... the latter is *sort-of* what I have in mind. I figured the various functions could be implemented on an as needed basis. However, I don't think it would feasible to support all of the functions that any typical plugin invokes. So you're right - I'm not sure what a VimL interpreter would do for me. I might try it out just as a toy project thought. -Charles On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM, Marc Weber <[email protected]> wrote: > @ ZyX: compile it? hell. compile to JS and use a JS language. JS is > known by everyone today! > Don't reinvent the wheel VimL is no longer what it should be... :( > We should push an existing language. We don't want to force the world to > learn yet another DSL for configuring editors only. > > If you want to optimize something: Add a regex native type so that regex > don't have to be recompiled on each comparison, please. This would speed > up quite a lot. > > Why JavaScript? Because many advanced implementations already exist. > Because most languages can be compiled to JS (because everyone wants to > target browsers anyway) ... > > (My 2 cents on this) > > Excerpts from Charles Strahan's message of Mon Jul 11 20:27:17 +0200 2011: > > Ultimately, I want ViEmu (or an alternative Visual Studio plugin) to have > > proper (relatively complete) support for VimL scripts. > > Hell. Tell me why. There are many nice languages available for .net > which are ways superior to VimL (which was ahead of its time 30 years > ago..) .. > > Also think about whether you only want VimL or VimL and Vim's api (:h > functions). If you want all of them .. good luck. I don't think this > makes much sense except functions like getline or getcursor. > > Most features will be impossible (or very hard) to implement unless > you're going to spend months on it. > > Be aware about VimL's exec command. Very often the VimL API is poorly > designed. Eg you have to do: > > exec 'set rtp+='.escape(path,',') > > or the like. it should have been: > > call SetRTPath([path]++oldpath) > > You don't want to implement all this (sh..) > > > I'm sure it would be a ton of work, but it looks like good fun. > VimL is simple so you can get it done. But you seriously should have a > look at all those other languages such as F# first. > They should be as productive as VimL if you think about it being a DSL. > And they are way superior if you want to get more things done. > > Of course - that's only my point of view :) You may have your own valid > differing judgments. > > Marc Weber > > -- > You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. > Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. > For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php > -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
