Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.perl
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!news.kei.com!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.ess.harris.com!jabba.ess.harris.com!Titan!mac
From: mac@Titan.ESS.Harris.com (Mike McDonald)
Subject: Re: GNU Extension Language Plans
Message-ID: <Cy6pBK.7t@jabba.ess.harris.com>
Sender: mac@Titan (Mike McDonald)
Nntp-Posting-Host: titan.ess.harris.com
Organization: Harris Information Systems Division
References: <9410190420.AA02904@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <388pc2$5cf@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> <id.2E1E1.DMK@nmti.com> <38a3mk$lr8@csnews.cs.colorado.edu> <38ftvn$d4a@nntp1.u.washington.edu>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 1994 15:50:07 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu gnu.misc.discuss:19113 comp.lang.tcl:20816 comp.lang.scheme:10563 comp.lang.misc:18363 comp.lang.perl:36976

In article <38ftvn$d4a@nntp1.u.washington.edu>, tzs@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
|> 
|> Everyone seems to be assuming that the extension language built into the
|> program must be the same as the extension language that the user sees.
|> Yet this is not so.  What would be wrong with building in something that
|> is small, simple, and fast (e.g., Forth), and then providing tools to
|> compile something else to that (e.g., a gcc backend that generates Forth
|> instead of assembly)?
|> 
|> --Tim Smith

  Because you can't maintain the system then. If your users get to go off and
pick any tranlator they want, you'll have to learn every available language
inorder to debug your user's scripts. I don't believe that it is practical  for
you to expect to be able to debug a script written is some unknown language that
was machine translated into scheme, or forth, or whatever. (I've argued this same
point with the Dylan people to no good.)

  If you're not going to let them pick, then you just as well force them to use
the same language as you picked.

  Mike McDonald		mac@trantor.ess.harris.com
