Re: Translation for extension is a bad idea

[Jonathan Bartlett <johnnyb at wolfram dot com>]

GIMP also uses multiple languages.

Jon

On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:

> jostobfe@linux.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE writes:
> 
> >You probably don't want to use scheme as an extension
> >language for lilipond because this would make your customers
> >stay away from your program.
> 
> Duh.  Customers didn't stay away from the program. They didn't when it
> was in C++ exclusively, and now that there is getting to be more
> Scheme, they still don't. (And no, they also don't contribute
> code. Not then, not now)
> 
> BTW, it's called lilypond, not lilipond.
> 
> >Wether you invent your own configuration language to let you
> >customers
> >extend lilipond or use some other "standard" language doesn't matter,
> >translating your language to scheme *should* be easier than writing a
> >new language interpreter from scratch.
> 
> I don't buy this:
> 
> if I want to use a standard language, I embed the an
> interpreter for that standard language.
> 
> I don't go around designing my own langauge, because (quoting the
> GUILE webpage)
> 
>       A good [..] language takes time. We've taken that time
>       for you.
> 
> I would defeat the purpose of having a full-blown interpreter for a
> mature language by designing my own.
> 
> 
> Brent Fulgham:
> 
> >This is especially true where you have multiple users who each prefer
> >a different language for extension.  Linking to 'n' different
> >interpreter binaries, using 'n' different embed-API's and 'n'
> >different sets of interpreter quirks rapidly produces a massive
> >problem space for the application developer, and for debugging
> >problems with a user's scripts.
> 
> Again, I don't buy this. If I were to use GUILE, I'd have to use n
> different translators each with their own quirks. As a bonus, there
> are much less developers working on GUILE translators than on each of
> the Tcl/Python/Perl languages, which would result in less rapid
> bugfixes.
> 
> And I don't really believe that a developer will give thought to a "we
> want Tcl for extension" when there is already a functioning Scheme
> extension mechanism, especially if he/she is short on time. (Well, in
> any
> case, I wouldn't).
> 
> [On the factual side: the only multi-language app that I know of,
> Gnumeric, has different plugins for each language and uses the
> standard interpreters for each.  The developers are actively pursuing
> interoperability using CORBA/Bonobo, and they are not using a unified
> language.
> 
> Perhaps the developers of gnumeric can give us a piece of their mind.]
> 
> -- 
> 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys   |   hanwen@cs.uu.nl    | http://www.cs.uu/~hanwen/
>