GDB and scripting languages - which

[Robert Dewar]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:01:39 -0500
>> From: Robert Dewar <dewar@adacore.com>
>> CC: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>,  gdb@sourceware.org
>>
>> that's really pure FUD
> 
> Thanks, this kind of attitude really helps to facilitate free
> expression of opinions on this list.

Well my use of the term FUD here was
considered. You were arguing that Python would
introduce excessive overhead, but with absolutely
no supporting data, or detailed argument. To me
a claim like that is definitely in the general
fear-uncertainty-doubt category, and is not
very helpful ... simple opinions are not very
useful unless they are grounded in some clear
facts.

My experience with Python (mostly in the context
of its use as a scripting language for GPS), is
that it is powerful, easy to use, and does not
introduce excessive overhead. The organization
of Python is modalar, lots of the capability is
in libraries which you only get if you access,
and having a python interpretor installed seems
like a more and more reasonable thing, given
the increasing popularity of this language for
many things.