Re: LYNX-DEV Since Lynx won't, what will?

[Larry W. Virden, x2487]

> In message <address@hidden>, Jim Dennis writes:
>  ]    One of the other enhancement requests I've seen at browser.org
>  ]    is the one  calling  for   some  sort  of embedded   scripting
>  ]    language.  
> 
>  ]      I followed that up with  the recommendation that we
>  ]    TCL for this task 
>     (?)

While I use the programming language Tcl myself occasionally
(see <URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/tcl-faq/> for details of
Tcl in use around the world), I am not convinced that using it as the
primary scripting language for Lynx is a good idea.

>  ]      (since  TCL is  specifically designed to  be
>  ]    embedded).  I've also recommended that  we look at ctk (curses
>  ]    tk) since   it's  designed  to  work with  TCL   and  we could
>  ]    seriously benefit  from the layout manager   for use in tables
>  ]    (among other things).

Before we do that, someone needs to 'pick up the mantle' of support for
cTk, so that it is as well supported as slang and ncurses.  _Then_
talk to us about the possibilities.

> The language is not what is causing problems with table support in Lynx,
> instead the current "API" is, specifically the fact that it wasn't 
> designed with things like tables or extensibility in mind, so it's not
> just a matter of writing a function to calculate column widths and such.

Well, it's more than the API - the entire 'innards' of lynx need to be
rebuilt - or at least, the entire innards relating to tables.  This is
going to require someone to sit down and rethink lynx.  Frankly, it's
my opinion that it will never happen for lynx.  Instead, I suspect
someone who requires a character based browser will get tired of
griping about tables in lynx and will will start from scratch, building
for HTML 3 or 4, and design something to handle tables the way they
want them handled.  Doesn't someone want a nice year long project for
school <grin>?

> I really don't think that the current Lynx code base can benefit from
> having a Tcl (or Perl or Python or Scheme or INTERCAL) interpreter
> slapped onto it.  I'm not convinced that scripting really belongs in
> a browser.  

Well, I think that I've seen enough examples of what folk are trying to
do on the WWW with scripting that I'm convinced there is some benefit,
however, I _am not_ convinced yet that choosing any language that
is incompatible with what the rest of the world is doing, and which
can't be used to at least read and interprete what almost everyone else
is doing, is in the long term best interest of the browser.

> [no, I'm not trying to be language specific, so don't try to turn this
>  into a "my language is better" thread; the language is immaterial to
>  the point I'm trying to make]

I agree.

-- 
Larry W. Virden                 INET: address@hidden
<URL:http://www.teraform.com/%7Elvirden/> <*> O- "We are all Kosh."
Unless explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting should 
be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
;
; To UNSUBSCRIBE:  Send a mail message to address@hidden
;                  with "unsubscribe lynx-dev" (without the
;                  quotation marks) on a line by itself.
;