Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Extension language

[Colin Walters]

On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 23:29, David Brown wrote:

> As nice as it sounds, it is a bad idea.  You'll end up with the same
> problem that vim has.  Vim can use Python, Perl, Ruby and possibly
> others. 

vim is different in that these extensions are not generally used for
*automating* vim in some fashion and building higher-level applications
on top of it; rather they are external commands that the user can
trigger.

I mean, it doesn't make much sense to try to extend tla in that
fashion.  You already have a good way to run extensions for tla: via
your shell.  Just name your script tla-do-foo, and poof, it's an
extension.  There's no obvious significant gain to pushing a
distinguished programming language into tla just so you can say "tla
do-foo".

> Since there is no standard language to extend it in,
> extensions don't get used very often.  It is much better to pick a
> language, and integrate it well.

That's probably true for an editor.  But a library (which is what
libarch is) should be accessible from many different languages.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part