[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] New fuctionallity for batch operations, opinions wanted

From: Jim Segrave
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] New fuctionallity for batch operations, opinions wanted!
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 15:00:46 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

On Fri 11 Jul 2003 (10:17 +0000), Joern Thyssen wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2003 at 08:10:53AM +1200, Joseph Heled wrote
> > 
> > This lack is due to GNUbg "not very good" scripting abilities. Since 
> > this is a GNU project, Gary decided on Scheme as the builtin scripting 
> > language. This might be fine for super programmers like Gary, but I 
> > think it is hard to swallow for most of us. For my development work, I 
> > used to work with TCL, and recently switched to python and very happy 
> > with it.
> I agree that it would be very nice for have a scripting language inside
> gnubg. Scheme is the gnu-way to go, but my knowledge of lisp only
> extends to making simple initialisations in my .emacs file :-)

It is possible (may or may not be a good idea) to create a non-Lisp
like scripting language and interpret that into scheme, preserving
scheme as the underlying language but putting a less parentheses heavy
wrapper on it.
> Python and perl are other candidates. It looks quite easy to to embed
> python into gnubg. We would have to provide a wrapper function for each
> important gnubg function. Does anyone have experience with embedding
> python into C-programs?
> Both perl and python has gtk extensions, so it also possible to make
> user functions that creates dialogs etc.

As a heavy user of Perl, please if we go this route, use Python. Perl
has many sterling qualities, but it's "Swiss Army Knife" approach to
features leads to some pretty horrrible things.

Jim Segrave           address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]