Re: [Gnu-arch-users] arch roadmap 1 (and "what's tom up to")

[tomas]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 11:24:56AM -0700, Pierce T.Wetter III wrote:
> >>>The messages begin to introduce furth, a new extension language that 

[...]

>   So furth will be needed when people want to add custom rules to
> how tla works, in the same way that Makefiles are really a rather
> bizarre language.
> 
>   Ok, so why furth? Because you like scheme? Why not use one of the
> existing languages that let you embed an interpreter (perl, python),
> why a whole new language that only you can program in.

Which one? see below...

>  3. I'm not sure it makes sense to EVER force a decision on the user of
> what language to use. Why can't tla call out to any shell, perl, 
> python, ruby,
> script or program? If it needs tight integration, integrate with 
> Parrot, lets
> not have yet-another-vm...

I, for my part can see the furth bindings as a way to do generic
bindings towards other languages and providing at the same time
core extensibility. I am thrilled by the perspective.

Let's be honest. Binding C to most of the interpreters around
nowadays is a chore (even with the help of swig), especially
if you want to do callback and other non-trivial stuff. Only
tcl had (with its `all params are strings' + argc/argv model)
a very simple way to do it -- if you were willing to write your
C functions toward it (and at the expense of some performance).

I very much look forward towards furth, pika (and a *small*,
highly portable, acceptably efficient core VM which changes
little over time[1]). It's sorely needed in many places, one
of them being ./configure.

Go, Tom, go!

Sorry for this rant.

------
[1] To me, this is just one aspect of portability. Portability
    in time. Or -- how many times did a Debian installaton break
    on you because the apt tools don't go well with the Perl Du
    Jour? (Ah and you Pythoneers, shut up: there is also the
    Python Du Jour ;)

regards
-- tomás